Author Topic: H9 PT-19 ARF (Read 3802 times)

John Fitzgerald · « **on:** February 10, 2012, 06:09:22 PM »

Finished the H9 PT-19 on January 20. Flew it first time yesterday. Enya .29 model 5224 powered with 10x5 APC prop. Balanced about perfect without extra nose weight with the muffler addition. The muffler is from a OS 25 FP.
The model is kind of heavy at 47.5 ounces, but the ply doublers I added up front made extra nose weight unnecessary. The instruction book says 38-44 oz, but the doublers added about 4 ounces; they are worth it.

The engine seemed a little weak; I launched at about 8500. Not screaming lean, but breaking a little into rich. Lap times were about 5.5 on 55 foot lines, not counting handle and plane. Wings were level, so tip weight seems ok at 3/4 ounces. I did some straight up wing overs, no loops or inverted. Turns were crisp. Overhead tension was ok. Never got slack. Almost no wind at all. Fuel was all castor 5% nitro. The muffler fits perfectly, and the engine is amazingly quiet. Maybe the muffler is too restrictive? Maybe different prop? Possibly this is the way the plane is supposed to perform?

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2012, 06:15:55 PM »

Hey John,
That is a good plane and will do the entire pattern. If you are using the lines that came with the kit please check them to make sure they are secure.
I don't know much about the Enya's but unless the .29 is a power house you may need a little more power.

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2012, 06:32:32 PM »

I re-terminated the lines with wire wrap. I also have other lines and handles. Re-crimped the lead outs at both ends also, and added glue to the bell crank mount.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2012, 06:36:20 PM »

We've two of these flying in Philly. FP40s power them. Running at a good clip. Lots of issues with the soft nose. Eventually a new fues was made for one of the planes. Flies well now.

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2012, 06:54:09 PM »

I added 1/8 ply doublers back to the high point of the wing plus oversize aluminum engine pads. The nose is fairly stiff now.

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2012, 07:32:18 PM »

Did it come with the Evo 36?

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2012, 07:48:14 PM »

Quote from: Paul Taylor on February 10, 2012, 07:32:18 PM

Did it come with the Evo 36?

No, they were backordered; it was only the plane, lines, and handle. I could take a Tower .40 off an even bigger plane, but I think it would be too fast. It hauls the other plane almost too well. Maybe I'll take the baffle out of the muff. It's not much louder than some electrics I have heard. It's only about half as loud as my .25 FP with tongue muffler.

Larry Fernandez · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2012, 11:15:52 PM »

Hey John, Go ahead and use the Tower .40 and use less pitch on your prop. Run the motor at a happy RPM and control your lap times with the prop.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team

john e. holliday · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2012, 08:02:27 AM »

Ithink flying on 55 foot lines, the .29 should be more than enough power. I remember Enya's taking forever to break in. We would run them enough to fly and finish break in, in the air. After a season of flying they became great engines that lasted what seemed like forever. Now don't bruise the grass.

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2012, 11:28:42 AM »

The link below shows its maiden flight. I am not a very steady handed pilot. I am interested in comments about the flight characteristics of the airplane as you see them. Thanks.

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2012, 09:33:09 PM »

John,
It is kind of hard to tell from the video but it looks like the outboard wing is a little high. Also is the plane hunting in level flight?

I would suggest that you capture it in level flight, both upright and inverted. I would also like to see the plane glide in for a landing. You should be able to tell a lot if it is nose heavy or not by how easy the plane glides in.

my 2 cents

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2012, 06:59:32 AM »

It glided in easily and smoothly for about 3/4 lap, but that is kind of hard to see in the video. It is not really hunting in level flight but seems very sensitive. I didn't want to try inverted because of the dihedral in the wing. Maybe that wouldn't matter much. I will try to make another video when the weather warms again.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2012, 08:28:56 AM »

From what I see in the video, it is first flight jitters. You are not relaxed and the plane looks a little fast, maybe not. You just need more time on the handle. My method of wingovers is to square up to the direction of the wind(wind at my side). Pull up and go shoulder to shoulder straight over the top. If the plane feels good, you are good to go. Remember the hardest maneuvers to master are supposed to be the easiest, Take off, Level laps and Landing. I too give away too many points on those three maneuvers. Just takes practice and a good coach.

Zuriel Armstrong · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2012, 10:21:04 AM »

Howdy john,

It's good to see you flying. Is that the church back behind your house? The plane looked pretty good for a first flight. It's very difficult to give good crtiques from this video though. We need to get together when it warms up and do some flying again.

Zuriel

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2012, 11:17:51 AM »

Heck ZMan bring him with you next time you come over.

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2012, 12:13:40 PM »

The controls on the H9 PT-19 are very sensitive. One of the modifications I made to mine to make it more enjoyable was adding about 3/4" to the control horn. This was after making sure the balance point was correct also. Still turns a pretty good corner. I like the look of the airplane and understand the design concepts and intent behind it, but I still think they missed the mark in that respect. The nose could have been a bit longer, and the tail moment a bit longer to make a better looking profile and a more stable overall platform. The Evil .36 (yes, I spelled that correctly !) was a whole 'nother story and has been chronicled here and over at SSW also. I should have swallowed my pride and sent that thing back for an exchange but it's too late for that now I guess.
Good luck and have fun,
Dan McEntee

Bill Little · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2012, 01:32:11 PM »

My concern is flying 5.5 laps on 55' lines. No models really like to fly that slow. Put more pitch on the prop and maybe a bit more needle. On 55' lines I would expect it to at least be in the 4.6-4.8 lap time arena. That's more like 5.0 on 60' eye to eye, whereas 5.5 on 55' is like 6.0 on '60'. Just seems way too slow.

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2012, 02:25:04 PM »

Quote from: Zuriel Armstrong on February 12, 2012, 10:21:04 AM

Howdy john,

It's good to see you flying. Is that the church back behind your house? The plane looked pretty good for a first flight. It's very difficult to give good crtiques from this video though. We need to get together when it warms up and do some flying again.

Zuriel

Zuriel,

That's the churchyard behind the house. I need to find a better place that is also close by. Have the circle cleared at the farm northeast of Pettigrew, but it is still rough.
BTW, did you check out my other video of my 11 year old "Dragonfly" flying again? That was in my small circle (130') at the farm.

Paul,
I live further northwest from Zuriel than he does from you, but maybe I will make the trip sometime. Thanks for asking.

Dan,
I tend to overcorrect when pulling out of maneuvers that get pointed toward the ground at some point. My wingovers tend to end in small u-shaped maneuvers followed by level flight. I guess that's the result of too many crashes over the years caused by late pull outs. Maybe more handle time will correct that, maybe not.......

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #18 on:** February 25, 2012, 10:57:23 PM »

Update:
I flew the PT-19 more, and changed props twice. The Enya .29 seems too weak. I am still flying 5.5 second laps on 55 foot lines, and not enough power to do more than a wingover with any confidence. I did manage to get it inverted, and the wings seem level. Tired of messing with it. Underpowered planes are disasters waiting to happen IMO.

After I got back home this evening, I put a Neumann Tower .40 on it. Going to try it again soon with 60 foot lines. Bet it won't lack in power any more. I expect it will probably do 5 second laps on 60's. Leonard always said to run a 12-6 on these engines in a fast 4-cycle. I don't have ground clearance for a 12, so I bolted on a 10-6 wide blade Tiapan prop.

dankar · « **Reply #19 on:** February 25, 2012, 11:26:42 PM »

Enya sounded good, put it on a R/Master/ F/Streak. I would not use a 12/6 om a Tower .40. 11/5 and just use bigger wheels. 60 foot lines. Happy flying,Dan

john e. holliday · « **Reply #20 on:** February 26, 2012, 08:00:24 AM »

John, as Big Bear says, 5.5 seconds on 55 foot lines is way to slow. May be great for a Bi-Slob, but for the PT-19 you need more air speed. 5.5 seconds on 60 foot of line is way to slow for me. Is your Enya broken in to where you can speed it up with I would say using a 10-6 or 10-5 prop? Now when you put that 40 on the plane like you say you are, slow it down to 5.5 second laps. You will probably get the same results. In my opinion the Enya .29 should be more power than you would ever need. Used to use them in combat before the pressure systems came around and the the bladders.

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2012, 08:39:29 AM »

John,
The PT-19 is way too heavy. Nearly 48 ounces. I don't think that Enya 29 is capable of pushing that 54 inch span well enough. Even if it's not broken in yet (don't know how much
running before I got it), it likely would only gain 5 to 10% more power and that is not enough. In the end the PT-19 may not be worth messing with. Even with the full length ply doublers extending to the spar the nose still vibrates some. I will call it a learning experience..don't buy bargain arf.

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #22 on:** February 26, 2012, 04:47:57 PM »

John,
Don't give up.

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #23 on:** February 26, 2012, 08:57:19 PM »

Paul,
I saw that video when I first got the ARF "kit". From what I have learned, those guys rebuilt everything on those planes nearly from scratch. I have already put doublers on. Hopefully the Tower .40 will not vibrate too bad. It's an ABC, while the Enya is iron piston, which tend to vibrate more. As a last resort, I might cut the fuse open and fill it with low expanding foam. The plane is not worth it to me to rebuild from scratch. My planes rarely last as long as 50 flights before thay get totalled by some mishap. I am going to restrain the plane and start the Tower .40 on it tomorrow even if its too windy to fly, just to see if it tears the nose off. Maybe, weather permitting, I will get something resolved on it this week, since I am only scheduled to work Tuesday and Friday.

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #24 on:** February 26, 2012, 09:18:06 PM »

John,
Did not know that.
Well maybe they make a good trainer.

Good luck....

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #25 on:** February 27, 2012, 06:18:16 PM »

Too windy to fly today. Ran the Tower .40 on the plane. It turned a 10-6 Tiapan prop at 10,200 while running in a lean 4 rich 2. The pull was much stronger on the stooge than the Enya, and very little vibration. Closing the needle just a little increased the rpm to 11,200 in screaming 2 stroke. 5% nitro fuel.

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #26 on:** February 27, 2012, 06:31:45 PM »

Sounds good John. Keep us posted.

kenneth cook · « **Reply #27 on:** February 27, 2012, 06:52:07 PM »

Hello John, I fly with both Mike and Dan. They looked into the PT-19 for doing exactly what you saw in the video. Prior to the PT's, they were using Ringmasters. We all know how the Ringmasters slide around the maneuvers and generally don't do a very pretty pattern without extreme finesse. The PT just came onto the market and these grabbed their attention immediately. Reasons were simple, cost wasn't very high and the planes were readily available. Both Dan and Mike didn't rebuild their planes. The planes were entirely stock and in that video were entirely stock aside from some alterations in the hardware. Dan had to rebuild his fuse due to a crash over asphalt and Mike's got broken up a bit as well. When Dan decided to repair his plane, he figured it was less time to fix the PT fuse by just making one conventionally from 1/2" stock. He didn't like the look of it out of the box and now he designed it to his liking. They both owned FP.40's which is virtually a Tower.40 as all parts are interchangeable. Both of their planes had a slight mod to the nose where the engine bolts onto it. Dan made square motor mount stock from maple then turned the end in the lathe round for approx 1 1/4" and inserted the round end into the fuse with epoxy. This is what his engine bolted onto. That was really the only major alteration they had. Most members in the club that fly the FP or Tower .40's use the APC 10.5 x 4.5 prop. That is what they were using in the video and currently on the plane. Both planes suffered from vibration issues which gave way to the typical engine run problems. Dan configured two tanks made by Tetra which are plastic with a bladder inside. This tank is slightly problematic to fill and initially start, but the run is impeccable. I know in your case you've been doing some prop experimenting. I don't know if you ever tried the prop I mentioned above but it works well with these engines. I can't comment on the reworked Leonard Tower .40 as I've never seen one run. Ken

Mike Palko · « **Reply #28 on:** February 27, 2012, 07:12:50 PM »

John,

Ken's comments are right on. Here is a link to further discussion on SSW. http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=369201&mesg_id=369201&page=5

Mike

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #29 on:** February 27, 2012, 08:33:22 PM »

The Neumann modified Tower .40 is retimed to turn a larger propeller at lower RPM, while running in a lean 4 / rich 2 cycle mode. It turns a standard 12-6 prop about 8700-9000 on the ground, but I don't have clearance for one of those, hence the 10-6 wide blade Tiapan. I bought two of those .40s back about 1999, and have not run them much, as I was inactive in modeling much of the time since 2004.

John Fitzgerald · « **Reply #30 on:** March 30, 2012, 08:14:34 PM »

I finally got a chance to fly the PT-19 with the Tower .40 on it. 62 foot lines. Laps right around 5 seconds. It flies very well, does the round maneuvers very well, even overhead 8's. The vibration is much less than it was with the Enya .29, and the power is probably 30% more.