stunthanger.com

General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 02, 2007, 06:29:49 PM

Title: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 02, 2007, 06:29:49 PM
Howdy

While I'm waiting for the Solarfilm to arrive so I can finish my 38 Special I have decided to start building a Nobler. Top Flite version from a kit I got from eBay some time ago.  The kit is very old and a few parts are missing and it looks like it may have been damp at one stage.  But I have salvaged the good and am replacing the bad and pressing on. I'm going to make my own canopy & tank and put a brand new Fox .35 in it to see how flying was back in the 60s then I was just a little kid, and maybe even have a go at Classic Stunt.

So can anyone tell me, what are the main differences between the Original Nobler and the Top Flite Nobler.  I read somewhere that the stab and fin on the ariginal are bigger. Does anyone have both models who can confirm?

Cheers

Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Jim Pollock on February 02, 2007, 06:36:16 PM
Well,

I don't have both models but I do have the three views of both.  The 1952 original nobler has a 52" wing and a 21" Stab/elevators.  The 1957 Green Box Nobler of Top Flite fame has a 50.5" wingspan and a 20" stab/elevator combo and a little longer tail moment arm.  Also the 52 versions landing gear angles slightly more forward than the Green Box version.  I believe the both fly very similarly though.  Make sure all those parts are nice and straight - not warpped any.

Jim Pollock   HIHI%% 
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 02, 2007, 07:02:09 PM
What Jim said!  Plus, IIRC, the wing offset (asymmetry) is more on the "original" one.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Windwalker on February 02, 2007, 09:15:43 PM
Warren:
I have a canopy from a T/F Gieseke Nobler. It's the only thing I was able to salvage from a broken leadout induced crash many years ago.. If you can use it, it's yours free. Just contact me and give a mailing address.

Nick
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 03, 2007, 07:15:58 AM
Hi Guys

Thanks for the info.. I must say, even though this kit is very old and in not very good condition, some of the wood in it is superb and it has assebled like a dream so far.  A lot of the wood is quarter gain and very light. It looks like the only wood I'll need to replace is the 1/16" sheeting, which seems to be too hard to mould around the LE and fuse.  I assembled the tailplane and fin today and I was amazed at how well it all fitted together, unlike some other kits I've assembled.

The kit was missing the bellcrank which I replaced with an old  Perfect brand that I had. It was Also missing the canopy which Nick has offered to send me, so I'm right there "Thanks Nick!" and the tail wheel wire and plywood mount, easily fixed. And the J bolts for mounting the langing gear, I was able to improvise and mounted it using split pins.

I really am enjoying assembling this and I've been thinking about the design a lot.  George really was ahead of his time eh. I measured it up aginst my Vector 40 which is hanging right next to my work bench and the dimensions are very similar, except the Vector 40 has a 24" span tail plane.

Oh and yes it is all very straight and it looks like it's going to be nice and light.  I'm going to follow the directions and cover the while thing with silkspan.  I'm still not sure if Im going to paint it or decorate it with lightweight coloured tissue.  I'll wait and see how it turns out after doping. One thing you can be sure of, it wont be the standard colors.

Tomorrow I'm fitting up the engine, doing the wing and fuse sheeting and carving the cowling and top block. I'm really looking forward to it.

Cheers
Warren

Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Ward Van Duzer on February 03, 2007, 07:50:12 AM

No Warren,

NO, NO, NO Perfect bellcranks! Aluminum material WAY too soft. You'll cut throught it and lose the whole package. Anyway I prefer 4" bellcranks. Slows down the control movements and creates a "controlable" model rather than a "twitchy" model. Use any of the currently available BC's from Tom Morris, Windy, CLC, or Brodak. But NEVER "Perfect"!

Anybody agree with me?

Ward
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Herman Green on February 03, 2007, 09:09:39 AM
If you ever get into one of those lines get slack - plane hits the end of the lines hard situations, the perfect bellcrank WILL BEND!

Herman
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Tom Niebuhr on February 03, 2007, 09:26:51 AM
Urgent... DITTO!!!
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: WestCoastOldie on February 03, 2007, 11:06:03 AM
+1000

Hawk
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 03, 2007, 12:08:09 PM
AAARRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!  Not a Perfect bellcrank in that plane!!!!!!!  Replace that NOW!!  Use a modern CF, nylon, PC board or similar.  That's a must!  y1 ;D
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 03, 2007, 03:27:42 PM
Wow! I just got out of bed to find all these replies.  Thank guys, the Perfect bellcrank will be replaced before the wing sheeting is put on today.  I was a little suspect on it myself anyway.  Thanks all for letting me know in time.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: rob biddle on February 03, 2007, 03:55:23 PM
    Hi Warren,
  As you may have heard a few guys reckon the perfect bellcrank isn't so perfect afterall. LL~

 In fact a mate of mine lost (an old) model with a perfect bellcrank when the pushrod finally wore the hole in the bellcrank so big that the pushrod fell out when the model was inverted. Made about 1/2 a lap before it went in.

 I have used them on .15 size models but I always bush all of the holes!

 cheers, Rob.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 03, 2007, 05:59:16 PM
Ok it's done.  I've changed it over to a Brodak 4" heavy duty nylon cut down to 3".  Now that you all reminded me, I do remember years ago learning that aluminium belcranks were no good... I have a Mouse Racer that wore out the belcrank after about 10 flights.  Thanks for reminding me and thanks for letting me know before I started sheeting the wing. 

Lucky I have the resources of modern technology to access all this great help.  I've noticed a lot of the older more experienced guys here don't use the internet. In fact they tend to shy away from it. I'm certainly glad the U.S. guys aren't like that.

Cheers
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 03, 2007, 07:32:43 PM
  I've noticed a lot of the older more experienced guys here don't use the internet. In fact they tend to shy away from it. I'm certainly glad the U.S. guys aren't like that.

Cheers


Could be they are part of the witness relocation program. Naw.  LL~ LL~ LL~ y1

Well, we know there is at least one well known US ex-C/L stunt pilot/designer in the program!
y1
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 06, 2007, 04:34:21 AM
Ok guys,

Next question.  I've finished building the wing, tailplane and fin. All  are straight as an arrow and look really good... I can't believe how well this old kit has gone together.  I' also amazed at the quality of the wood given it's age. Everything just fits perfectly. I'm on the fuse now and have carved out the cowl.

Here's my question: On the Top Flite plan, it shows a hole in the front of the cowl and a slit for the air intake.  Is this big enough?  Or should I open it up some more like on the ARF cowl?  I' using a brand new Fox .35  I have also cut away the first bulkhead and cut two decent size holes in the rear of the cowl to let the air out but I'm just not sure the intake is big enough. See photo.

Cheers
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bob Reeves on February 06, 2007, 06:38:15 AM
Do what looks good to you but I would make the intake opening large enough to get a finger in to choke the engine. Just make sure your air outlet holes have twice the area as the intake opening.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Alan Hahn on February 06, 2007, 08:00:10 AM
Warren,
If it was good enough for George, it should be ok for the rest of us ;D

If you notice, it is directing the airflow over the exhaust side of the engine. Also the Fox was mainly 4 stroking, so I bet it normally isn't running too hot. Also that 29% castor wasn't for nothing!
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 06, 2007, 08:17:48 AM
Warren,
If it was good enough for George, it should be ok for the rest of us ;D

If you notice, it is directing the airflow over the exhaust side of the engine. Also the Fox was mainly 4 stroking, so I bet it normally isn't running too hot. Also that 29% castor wasn't for nothing!

Hi Alan,

I have a WAG that a lot of times, the "way" we run our engines , and what fuel we use often causes a lot of our "overheating" problems.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 14, 2007, 08:24:39 PM
Guys,

Construction is almost completed on the Nobler. It is almost ready to start applying trim.  Here's a drawing I did to work out a colour scheme. I did several but my wife and daughters seem to like this one the most.  Do you think it would be appropriate?

Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 14, 2007, 08:43:22 PM
That will look very nice! y1
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Richard Grogan on February 14, 2007, 09:40:33 PM
Guys,

Construction is almost completed on the Nobler. It is almost ready to start applying trim.  Here's a drawing I did to work out a colour scheme. I did several but my wife and daughters seem to like this one the most.  Do you think it would be appropriate?



Isn't that the same scheme you did on your Vector? D>K ???

Or am I just loosing my mind??  HB~>

It is very interesting though...
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 14, 2007, 09:50:22 PM
Well spotted Richard, Yes it is, but this time I intend doing it in Silkspan with coloured lightweight tissue paper over the top. The Vector is done in Monokote.  I tried a few different schemes but none looked as good as this.  I've also found a nice font to do the decals in.   I figure if it doesn't come out as good as I hope it will I can always paint over it.

Cheers
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 15, 2007, 12:18:27 AM
Getting there...
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 15, 2007, 06:55:15 AM
Very nice work, Warren.  8)

 H^^
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 15, 2007, 08:13:24 AM
Thanks Bill 

It's coming out alright for a water damaged kit with bits missing and a few silver fish bugs that ate some of the plans and silkspan.  n~

The weight is currently at 27 oz with the motor and tank fitted and the CG is right where it should be.

Cheers

Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Gruby on February 15, 2007, 08:43:27 AM
I just love to see wing tips covered like that (DROOOOOL!!!) Beautiful job Warren


"Billy G"    H^^
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 15, 2007, 10:15:12 AM
Thanks Bill 

It's coming out alright for a water damaged kit with bits missing and a few silver fish bugs that ate some of the plans and silkspan.  n~

The weight is currently at 27 oz with the motor and tank fitted and the CG is right where it should be.

Cheers

Hi Warren,

Those Green Box Noblers seem to fly great around 40 oz.  For some "strange" reason, if a Nobler gets "too" light, they don't fly as good.  Which is totally against my thoughts on building as light as I can! **)  Always an exception to the rule! ;D
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Garf on February 15, 2007, 11:48:19 AM
Make ABSOLUTELY sure the Fox is well broken in before you try to fly it. Most of the trouble people have with Fox is because it is too tight. Some of them take as much as a gallon of fuel run thru them before they are right. I have taken to lapping them before they are run. The difference is amazing.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: RandySmith on February 15, 2007, 12:07:53 PM
""""Those Green Box Noblers seem to fly great around 40 oz.  For some "strange" reason, if a Nobler gets "too" light, they don't fly as good.  Which is totally against my thoughts on building as light as I can!   Always an exception to the rule!  """"


 ~>  ~^  #^  ~>

Lol  Yeah !!  Tell  Gieseke  that    y1

Randy
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 15, 2007, 12:43:06 PM
""""Those Green Box Noblers seem to fly great around 40 oz.  For some "strange" reason, if a Nobler gets "too" light, they don't fly as good.  Which is totally against my thoughts on building as light as I can!   Always an exception to the rule!  """"


 ~>  ~^  #^  ~>

Lol  Yeah !!  Tell  Gieseke  that    y1

Randy

**) **) **)

Yeah, but that's a "Gieseke" Nobler!

**) **) **)

Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 15, 2007, 01:05:26 PM
I have read that about Noblers ie the weight thing. I guess I'll just have to see this for myself.  #^

The comprehensive 4 page Fox 35 Stunt 50th Anniversary Model  manual says "No special break in is required other than careful flying" Before that they mention running it sufficiently rich so it 4 cycles. Oh and it looks like I'll have to make a special batch of fuel too. 29% castor!!!!, 5% nitro.

Cheers
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: RandySmith on February 15, 2007, 01:12:45 PM
 HI Warren

May  want  to read  this, I have been asked  to post it

Regards

Randy

Glo-Plugs ,Fuel ,Tanks and  the C/L STUNT ENGINE
Randy Smith
_____________________________________________________________

Plugs? Castor?  Synthetic?  Percentage?

_____________________________________________________________
      I have been asked many times to help explain why we have  so many things that can affect the run quality of Stunt engines. I will touch on a few of them , and hopefully help to eliminate some of these problems . Among them are tanks and fuel systems, glo plugs , fuel ,and overheating
  What are things that make for a  great, or  bad engine run. We see these things most every weekend, and it is  a very big point of frustration to many modelers. We all want our engines to run right, and it is  nice when it goes through the pattern smoothly, coming on and off, exactly when and where you want it.  Unfortunately, a lot of times, they growl , belch, shut off ,seem to have a mind of their own ,and are a total pain to deal with.  One of the biggest causes of this that I have seen is improper fuel.  Fuel is one of the most critical aspects in running model motors.  Use the right fuel and you will probably notice nothing; the wrong fuel will have you grumbling, or worse, will have your motor screaming, belching and running with absolutely no consistency whatsoever.

Most fuels on the market today use a synthetic base and are blended for the R/C sport flier.  These are typically very low on oil content, usually in the 12% through 15% range.  This is never acceptable for our use in C/L Stunt.  There are many reasons but the most important is the fact that we normally do not run our engines in a peaked two cycle, but rather a broad range of four cycle and rich two cycling.  Any time you run with the motor set to come on and off in the maneuvers (like a typical 4-2 break) you are not only asking the fuel to lubricate the motor, it also has to cool the engine.  The only way you can run in a 4-2 is to heat and cool the parts in the combustion chamber very rapidly.  This makes the oil content critical, because it’s the unburned oil that helps carry away the heat.

Years ago, most fuels had only one oil ,castor.  This is still a very good oil with many good but some bad points.  Some of its good points; it carries heat out of the motor and gives a good plating action on all surfaces, especially when they’re hot. It also has tendencies to move toward hot surfaces, helping to protect them.  A few of its bad points; it burns and sticks to the piston sides and the ring groove and all other parts that are hot enough, and will carbonize the chamber. It will stick rings in their grooves, freeze wrist pins and build up ridges on sleeves.  This causes excess friction and heat and will ruin your motor in time.

The alternative to castor is synthetic oil and almost all fuels have these in them; the vast majority has all synthetic.  Virtually all fuel manufactures use one type of synthetic; these are normally polyalkylene glycol based oils.  They are mostly made up of alcohol started linear polymers , of oxypropylene groups.  These are made by several companies and are available in a large range of molecular weights and viscosities.

This group of oils is the modern version of the old Ucon oils and also have good and bad points.  Some of the goods points; they are very good lubes without containing any wax; they have outstanding load carrying capacity, film strength, anti-wear properties, are resistant to sludge formation, and will help keep your engine clean.  The bad points are they give no rust protection by themselves, they don’t plate hot surfaces as well as castor and they burn at high heats.

As you can see, both oils have advantages and disadvantages to them; it’s for these reasons that they work much better blending together than they could ever work alone.  Throughout many years of flying ,testing and other research have proven this to me beyond any doubt; plus you can see this for yourself.  Recently, a friend of mine had a motor that would go into the pattern and lean out and act very inconsistently.  The only change that was made was to substitute one tank of my fuel in the model.  The results were drastically different; the motor now ran very smoothly, going into a two cycle instantly when the nose was raised and back into a four cycle instantly when the plane was leveled.  This was tried back and forth both fuels; his and mine.  The results were  the same every time. I see this type of thing happen much too often, and it is extremely frustrating for Flyers to deal with. They often blame these fuel problems on cooling, cowlings, motors ,fuel filters, and unfortunately some don’t have a clue how to recognize or  solve this problem. This is  a frustration that you can live  without!

I would like to tell you there is one Stunt fuel formula to run in all motors, I said I would like to tell you that…unfortunately this is not the case, and will never be as long as we have such a wide range of motors and running styles.  What I will tell you is a good formula for the most common types of engines.  Make sure you pick a fuel supplier who will give you consistent fuel day to day ,and will blend fuel for your motor needs or has fuel to match your needs.  Stay away from any supplier who will not tell you the oil percentage, or who say one type works for all motors. I see this  much to  often also, It is unfortunate, but a lot of fuel manufactures will try to fool you about the oil and nitro percentage. One trick is to measure the oil by weight and all other ingredients by volume. Doing so, they can claim that the fuel is  for example 18 % oil , when in reality it is only 14.9 % oil content. Using weight one for 1 ingredient and volume on the others does not  equal 100 % . Other things are changing oil types, going to cheaper Nitro’s, and adding in other types of Nitro parrafins.

   So what percentage do you try? For motors like Fox .35s, OS Max 35s or the old McCoy’s and K&B’s, use a fuel with 26 to 28% oil content; preferably half castor and half synthetic, up to 75% castor  is OK. These  motors have very small bearing surfaces, and are subject to much wear and heat, most are all plain bushing motors and most have unbushed rods. They need a lot of  oil  to help cool the engines. Since these motors run hot, they need  extra oil to keep them lubed,clean, and to carry out heat . If you have one of these that is  in very good  shape but, is  just starting to get some brown or black varnish plating on it, the synthetic mix will clean it  up for you, resulting in increased life.  Do not use the synthetic  blend in an old motor that has a lot of time on it with all castor fuels; the synthetic will remove the castor varnish off the piston and sleeve and will in some cases, leave you with the worn-out motor that had to start with.  Also always try to NOT use  prop shaft extensions with these engine, as it adds a  lot of  wear on the crankshaft bearing.

For motors with larger bushings and bushed rods like to OS FP , Magnum GP series, Tower, and  Brodak’s  a 22-25% half-and-half oil mixture works the best.  For S.T. .46 51,and .60s and most all ball bearings Stunt motors, a 23% half blend works best. Again the Synthetic blend will help keep the engine  clean, and insure long life. If you use  all castor in these  types, it can stick the ring in the groove , resulting in poor compression and  shortened engine life. If you have a ringed engine that castor has gummed up badly, most times running the synthetic blend will free the stuck ring, and the engine will  return compression and  power for you.
   The tuned pipe motors like a little more synthetic and I recommend a 15% synthetic, 7% castor blend or a  20% half and half with 1  ounce of Aero-1 fuel supplement. Although many use 1\2 – 1\2  with great success.  This works very well in the  Precision Aero , OPS and Max VF engines,  Super Tigre  Thunder Tiger, AERO TIGER and most all of these type engines..

     Four Strokes engines also like the blend, I have found that a 15 % synthetic – 3% castor blend works well for them, normal oil percentage is  18 to 20 %. This will vary some from engine to engine, but is  a good starting point. Most like 10 to 20 % nitro, going up to 25% to 30% in the hot summer weather. Aero-1 Fuel additive can help 4 strokes tremendously, as these engines are lubricated  mostly by “blow by” and can run very hot. Fuel and tanks are also very critical for 4 stroke operation. Make sure you have a tank that delivers fuel easily to the engine, as four strokes don’t seem to like having to pull fuel from the tank. Use as short a fuel tank as possible and keep it close to the engine. A lot of people use muffler pressure or pumps to help feed the 4 stroke engines. I have used OS VF pumps, Perry vibration pumps and Perry pressure pumps with my test on 4 strokes. I would suggest,as we do with 2 strokes, to use a Sullivan “Crap trap” fuel filter. They hold a lot of junk ,and have a very good double cone design, that pushes the debris away to the sides and almost never stop up. If you get a stopped up filter on a four stroke ( or 2 stroke for that matter) you can burn the engine up in one flight

  When you  use motors for the first time, you should also make sure you have the motor properly broken in.  This will range from six tanks of fuel for one engine to almost two gallons for others.  OS, for example, says two hours running time for their motors. A good break-in procedure is to use the same fuel as you will for your Stunt run ,and try to do your break-in on a bench; this is a lot better and an easier way to do a proper break-in.  A diameter, one inch smaller than you plan to run at, at a 3 or 4 pitch, should be the prop to use.  This will let the motor turn many revolutions more per motor run time.  Start out in a very sloppy four-cycle for cast iron lapped piston and  most ringed motors, slowly progressing to the fastest it will run in a four-cycle, then put it in a short two-cycle burst for short times.  After the correct amount of time it should be able to run in a two-cycle without heating up and going leaner. Using  3 to 6 ounces per run with 5 to 10 minutes  cool down time in between.

For ABC, AAC ,ABL, ABC-R and ABN motors, start out in a very fast four-cycle and about every 45 seconds; pinch the fuel tube to kick the motor into a momentary two-cycle. These  types of engines  normally  take  more  break-in time than do their iron lapped piston cousins . If you can run the motor in a fast four-cycle and without touching the needle, pinch the tubing to lean the motor into a two-cycle for 20 seconds or so, then it should go right back to a four.  After breaking  in  the engine with a few  tanks of fuel , you can start using the needle  to cycle back and forth from 2 to 4 cycle. When it is broke in you should be able  to hold a 2 cycle for 30 seconds or  so,  and come back to a  4 quickly by turning the needle richer . If not, it probably needs more running time.

Plugs  can also be  a  major cause of trouble, and poor runs.  When you first crank the plane, notice if it goes rich and sags slightly when the battery is removed; if so, the plug is normally too cold.  This is  critical to getting a proper Stunt run.

Most plugs are designed to provide a  colder range than we want in C\L aerobatic engines , and you should try to get the right range for the motor.  Many days of testing and much time and expense buying almost every plug on the market has yielded these results ;Thunder Bolt R\C long, T Bolt #3 , T Bolt 4 stroke, Glo Devil RC #300 long,  Enya 3 & 4, Fireball RC long, the Hobby Shack RC long, SIC RC long  a few of the OS hotter plugs and some of the FOX long and  Miracle plugs are best plugs for our use.  In almost all instances, use a long plus, as they will be substantially hotter than the shorts, plus they are deeper in the combustion chamber and this tends to keep things hotter and keeps  the plug elements cleaner.

A lot of times the plug problems show up as rich inside maneuvers and leaner outsides; this happens because gravity and centrifugal force ,forces the oil-fuel charge down on the element on insides, thus cooling the coil and pulls it away on the outside maneuvers, letting it naturally go leaner.  I have seen this problem instantly cured by simply changing plugs. Please  do not be  afraid  to put in a  new  glo plug , or try different types of plugs .
 All of this assumes you have your tank height perfect (you did adjust your tank height, didn’t you), you’re right side up and inverted lap times are the same.  This is important; don’t skip this step. If your  using a  profile sometimes you will need  to have the tank center higher than the engine center. The 3 \16 to 3 \8 range will do for most fox 35s . Others will run on center line ,or just off of it. Another case of run problems are tanks or fuel delivery systems, which includes the tank, fuel tubing ,fuel filter, and anything else connected to the fuel system. When these problems arise in most cases, the engine changes speeds in flight, either faster or slower , and is generally inconsistent in the needle setting. This is almost always blamed as an “engine problem” when in fact it almost always turns out to be a tank problem, or fuel delivery system problem. I find most every time I see this , it is one component of the fuel system that is at fault. Either a hole in the fuel tubing, junk in the filter, a hole in the tank, a tank with an internal crack in the pick up or feed line . The next most common problem of this is water in the fuel. Water will give a very inconsistent needle setting, and will change at random back and forth from lean to rich. There are a few other things that cause problems with fuel delivery, muffler or pipe pressure will, most times magnify any little leak or problem you have and make things much worse than they were. A few other causes are an engine with a leaking backplate gasket, or an improperly cooled engine. A basic rule of thumb is to have a good intake area, with double the size of the exhaust area. Make sure you model (if fully cowled) has the air blowing all the way across and past the engine before the air flow exits the cowling.  If your plane goes lean in maneuvers and comes back to a four-cycle slowly, it can be running too hot, you most likely need more oil, or less back pressure from the muffler.  I have seen a lot of fuel with water in it (methanol attracts water) and this will cause erratic runs and needle settings.  Always use fresh fuel and don’t be afraid to try another fuel if you think this is the problem.

Never try to put a brand new engine in a plane and try to break it in, trim and fly at the same time.  I have seen this too many times with disastrous results. It is  very hard to richen a too lean needle when the plane goes lean in flight.  Keep good care of your equipment and it will usually take care of you; abuse it and it will most times let you down.

     Now, a little more about fuels .For you guys who absolutely gotta buy the bargain R/C sport fuel…No amount of persuading will convince you otherwise; you at the very least need to add a healthy dose of castor oil.  You can roughly figure 1.3 ounces will raise the oil content one percent (i.e. 13 ounces of oil to make 15% oil fuel into 25% oil fuel).  This is not recommended and at the very best will usually be a guess, but  it is much better than not adding anything at all, and I know people that do this  all the time and get it to work for them .Example using  Fire Power Cool 15%, pour off 13 ounces and add 13 ounces of Castor, this will be close to 11% nitro, and 24 to 25 % oil , this would make an OK fuel for plain bearing FP type motors, add a little more oil, and you have a fuel that you could run in your Foxes. The final thing I would like to say  is to make sure you use an after-run oil between sessions and when you store the motors.  This is another must do, because of the nature of the fuel we use.  Then nitromethane or any nitropariffins burn, they leave behind, in your motor, acid and water, this, along with the water carried in partly by the alcohol, gets together and eats your bearing and other parts.  Good quality after run oil is easy to get; don’t skip this step.  If you can’t find a good after run at your local hobby shop, there are many available that are made by several companies…then try Prather’s.  They make a good one and so does RJL and Aero Products.  Do not use motor oil, Marvel Mystery oil; this is not after run oil.

Marvel makes excellent oil that can be used and as an after run oil and it is available from most auto parts stores and is called Marvel Air Tool oil.  As a matter of fact, most air tool oils can be used as an after run oil; they are designed to fight corrosion in metal air tools and this is exactly what we are looking for.  Another good place to get these types of oils are the large home supply stores like Home Depots and Builders Square type stores.  Look in the department where they carry air compressor and paint guns.  There are many brands of these oils so you see you have no excuse not to use them.

As for fuels, there are many good companies out there that will supply you with a good usable Stunt fuel.  You will need to search them out in your area.  .  If you are using some of these suppliers, call them up.  I’m sure most of them will oblige you.  The model magazine are full of 800 numbers for fuel suppliers and the ones that I have mentioned come highly recommended; however, this is by no means all of them.

SIG for example has a very high quality fuel that is stocked by dealer all over the country; their Champion is 20% blended oil and with extra castor or oil supplements, such as AERO-1, makes an excellent Stunt fuel. Sig and I believe Power Master also make 20 or  25 % all castor fuels, as well as  good  4 stroke fuel. Power Master is now making fuel for control line aerobatic planes, as are  many other companies. There are more companies making good C\L stunt fuel such as  S&W and others. I just don’t  know them all and have   not  used their  fuels in a while  Keep in mind things will vary slightly, so don’t be afraid to try something new, or your buddy’s fuel if you suspect you have a fuel problem. 


Randy Smith

   
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 16, 2007, 06:34:06 AM
Hi Randy

Thank you very much for that comprehensive techinal note.  I will save that and use it for future reference. Looks like I've got some work to do in the fuel mixing and running in departments. I have been using the Hobby Shop fuel because that's all I've been able to get. But I have now found a supplier who will mix fuel to my requirements. I've also found a supplier of castor oil so I can also start mixing my own fuel.

BTW Guys, My Nobler is looking like it is going to come out at around 38 to 40 oz. 

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Michael Floerchinger on February 16, 2007, 09:37:32 AM
Thanks Randy, very good information on the fuels
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 16, 2007, 11:03:33 AM
Hi Randy

Thank you very much for that comprehensive techinal note.  I will save that and use it for future reference. Looks like I've got some work to do in the fuel mixing and running in departments. I have been using the Hobby Shop fuel because that's all I've been able to get. But I have now found a supplier who will mix fuel to my requirements. I've also found a supplier of castor oil so I can also start mixing my own fuel.

BTW Guys, My Nobler is looking like it is going to come out at around 38 to 40 oz. 

Thanks again.

Hi Warren,

The fuel, etc., writing by Randy is something I printed out and put in a binder a while back! ;D

As to the "weight" issues with the Nobler, it is an ongoing "discussion" as to optimal weight for the Green Box Nobler.  I know Bob Gieseke had some very light versions!

Sounds like yours will be fine.  Randy likes to bust my chops every now and then, and it's fun! ;D

Good Luck with your Nobler, everyone needs a '57 Green Box Nobler at least once in their career!
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 16, 2007, 07:44:02 PM
Hi Bill

Well I took Randy's advice and guess what I got results!  My Vector is a lot more consistent this morning after adding more castor oil to my fuel. Also, my new 38 Special is running like a champion - still needs more running in though.

Here's a pic of of the Nobler progress... does anyone cover them them like this anymore? Also I wonder who was the genius who came up with this colour scheme for the Brodak Vector?

Cheers
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 16, 2007, 08:23:45 PM
Still looking great, Warren. y1

I do see the occasional transparent covering job.  They are quite stunning if done well!  Yours is looking very good.

Bill <><
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Jim Pollock on February 16, 2007, 08:30:26 PM
Warren,

John Brodak usually builds the 1st sample of his kit models and he is also usually responsible for the trim arraingement.
For some alternative paint schemes look up some club web sites where pictures are regularly posted.  View all the trim schemes and decide on one you like - then make a variation of that one, it's a good way of doing it.  A good web site is the Tulsa Glue Dobbers, they post lots of pictures. 

Jim Pollock
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 16, 2007, 09:31:30 PM
Hi gents,

I ran out of yellow lightweight modelspan tissue, so I had to put out a distress call to a mate who still has some. Once that arrives I should be able to do the bottom of the wing, top aft section of the fuselage and the fin. Once that's done I'll give it a few more coats of dope then finish it off with a  coat of polyurethane. It should look nice then.

This old Top Flite kit has impressed me. The quality of the die cut parts and fitting of the parts has made it go together really well and considering the condition this one was in, I'm very happy with the way it's turning out.  But I do really like the quality of the modern Brodak Kits. It is my mission to build every plane in the catalogue. Well most of them anyway.  Next up is the Profile Cardinal.... can't wait to get started on it.

Cheers
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: RandySmith on February 17, 2007, 11:43:25 AM
John Brodak usually builds the 1st sample of his kit models and he is also usually responsible for the trim arraingement.
For some alternative paint schemes look up some club web sites where pictures are regularly posted.  View all the trim schemes and decide on one you like - then make a variation of that one, it's a good way of doing it.  A good web site is the Tulsa Glue Dobbers, they post lots of pictures. 

Jim Pollock
[/quote]

HI All

A few of the Randy Smith  VECTOR schemes that have been flown
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 21, 2007, 03:04:25 PM
It's getting close now... just waiting for a muffler to arrive... Engine is part way run in.




Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: john e. holliday on February 21, 2007, 04:57:02 PM
You started this on the second it is now waiting for a muffler?  You got too much time on your hands and going to make Robert look slow.  Plane looks great.  Hope it flies as well as it looks.   DOC Holliday
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Richard Grogan on February 21, 2007, 05:30:43 PM
It's getting close now... just waiting for a muffler to arrive... Engine is part way run in.





Very cool Warren! Looks nothing like your Vector, with that clear doped silkspan and all ! It really fits the vintage of the bird. Good job!BTW.. If you want it to look really old, try the Minwax Polyurethane, it had a slight yellow patina look to it, like I used on mine...All that yellowed trim was white before the urethane.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: rob biddle on February 21, 2007, 06:04:09 PM
  G'day Warren,

 I was a bit dubious about how the vector paint scheme would look on a nobler, but as usual you have turned out a top shelf job. It really looks great! ;D ;D ;D

 Just wondering, what did you use to glue your canopy on with and do you know of a source for coloured tissue out here?

 I am going back to silkspan from iron on films as I get a much better finish with tissue and intend to use coloured tissue for trim over white silkspan covering. My new T-bird covered really well in silkspan (first attempt for about 8 years!) and intend to finish all of my models this way from now on.

 Cheers, Rob.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 21, 2007, 07:43:24 PM
Hi All,

Doc, Yes I gave up my job, moved home to live near the ocean and thought I would try out unemployment to see what it's like. It's pretty good so far. LOL . But it won't last... I'll have to go back to work soon, when I find a job that is.

Richard, Thanks!  I used Wattyl Estapol - Polyurethane sprayed over 3 coats of Nitrate Dope.  It does have a very slight yellowish tinge.

Rob, The canopy is a home made one from a shirt box lid. The original die cut one was missing from the kit. A nice fellow named Nick Gans from Texas sent me a Gieseke Nobler canopy but unfortuately it didn't fit quite right. So I made this one and glued it togther using "Pacer Formula 560 canpoy glue" It looks and smells just like PVA wood glue to me, it's white and dries clear. I used the same stuff to glue the canopy in place. It takes about 3 hours to start to set, 24 hours to go fully clear and hard so you need to tape it all down with masking tape and wait for it to dry. (I hate that. lol)

Cheers
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 21, 2007, 07:57:07 PM
Oh and Rob,

Good lightweight coloured tissue is almost impossible to get. I have some but not much. I ran out of yellow during this project and had to call in a favour from an old mate. I dont know of any good sources.  I have read though that you can use clothing dye to colour your silkspan. Plus I have also printed on paper and tissue using my HP Inkjet Printer and it doesnt run when doped. Thats how the decals were made for the Nobler. They are just printed on standard office paper and cut out. I could have printed on the tissue but since I'm running low I thought paper would do.

I think the best quality results are obtained by using Silkspan with 2 pak auto paint as the finish. I prefer Solarfilm because of it's simplicity and durability. Occasionaly one covered like this is good for something different but it's as fragile as .... and prone to hangar rash so need to be handled with extra care.  So dont expect to see too many from me covered like this.

Cheers

Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 27, 2007, 08:03:25 AM
I managed to put in a few more flights of the Nobler today, the engine is starting to settle in, but I'm still only getting 5 mins out of the tank. I measured the capacity of the tank I built as per the plan and it's only 3.25 oz.  So to increase the capacity I have installed a 3/4oz sump on the bottom of the tank on the inboard side. Is this the wrong thing to do? Or should I just make another tank that is 4 oz?

Cheers
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on February 27, 2007, 08:25:42 AM
I managed to put in a few more flights of the Nobler today, the engine is starting to settle in, but I'm still only getting 5 mins out of the tank. I measured the capacity of the tank I built as per the plan and it's only 3.25 oz.  So to increase the capacity I have installed a 3/4oz sump on the bottom of the tank on the inboard side. Is this the wrong thing to do? Or should I just make another tank that is 4 oz?

Cheers

HI Warren,

The "original" tank is small.  The pattern only required i lap between manuevers when the plans were drawn, so flight time required was shorter.

Make a tank as large as will fit into the space!  You can always draw out a measured amount after filling.  That way, you can use a higher nitro content if necessary on those blazing hot days.

Bill <><
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 27, 2007, 05:43:48 PM
Thanks Bill, I have now modified it with a 3/4 oz sump which seems to work very well.  I can fly the full F2B pattern now and it goes for just under 7 mins. Or when I'm ready to end the flight I just fly high and some of the fuel drains back into the sump and the motor cuts out. I can make my flight as short as 6 mins if I want or go the distance and come in just under 7 mins. I flew 3 times this morning with consistency so I'm now ready to take on the other guys in Ozzie Classic Stunt this weekend.

For those who don't know Classic Stunt is a special MAAA pattern for models that are pre 1965 vintage. (Proof is required, dated plan or magazine article) I have the June 1957 M.A.N. ad so I'm ok.

It goes something like this:

Starting and Departure within 1 min
Take Off
Level Flight
Inverted flight (entered from bunt) I dont know what that means yet...
Recovery I dont know what that means either...
Reverse Wingover
3 x inside loops
3 x outside loops (entered from upright or inverted)
2 x triangle loops
3 x horizontal 8s
3 x vertical 8s
3 x overhead 8s
1 x 4 leaf clover
Landing

I'm excited!!!
Cheers



Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: rob biddle on February 27, 2007, 10:58:44 PM
 G'day Warren,
 Thanks for the info about your canopy and finish etc.

 I haven't found a local source for canopy glue yet, actually come to think of it I used to glue them on with a thin bead of white (pva) glue and when that was dry, put on a small fillet of epoxy/micro balloon mix on the outside.
 
 It would then be painted over during normal painting/finishing.

 Sounds like a good comp coming up, I love flying the classic pattern as it was the first pattern I learned.

 Not far off building a Nobler myself.  ;D ;D ;D  I picked up a Brodak Nobler kit from SS hobbies a few months ago when I was getting a Super Chipmunk kit for my stepdad.

 Just have to finish painting my T-bird and finish the Ramrod that is about 1/2 built, (finished wing mounted in 1/2 framed fuselage).

 As always I have the bug to start another project when I am about 1/2 way through the previous one!

 In regards to Noblers, I always liked the original and 'green box' Noblers, was never a big fan of the MAN version. The fin just doesn't look quite right to me.

 I have had the plan for the green box Nobler for quite some time, if the Brodak one comes out ok I will have to get cracking on it. Good luck with yours, I think you will enjoy it.

 Cheers, Rob.

 
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on February 28, 2007, 05:44:53 AM
Rob, I have been enjoying the Nobler... got it trimmed and running right now and flew the full pattern 3 times today, it is as they say very smooth in the turns and very graceful.  I really like the stability it has when inverted and with the 4-2-4 break happening it sounds great. Even the local kids riding by on their push bikes have stopped and commented on how good it looks and sounds.

The only thing I haven't enjoyed is all that castor oil that comes out from the Fox .35 and gets all over everything.

I also have a Brodak Original Nobler Kit and a Sig Super Chipmunk Kit... not sure when I'll be building them though... I have to think about getting back into the work force before my wife kicks me out. lol

Current project is a Brodak Cardinal that is coming out very nicely, just waiting for the engine to arrive.  After that? It's something for my new ST G21 46 that I got for my birthday.  I'm thinking about maybe a Brodak Pathfinder because my 1/2A Pathfinder flies so well. Or perhaps something semi scale like a scratch built P51 Mustang. I'm not sure yet but open to suggestions.

I would also like to build something for my OS FS 52. I was thinking about a Strega ARF but have been advised they need a bigger engine plus they are way too expensive to get here. ie over $400 AUD.

Cheers





Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: john e. holliday on February 28, 2007, 12:51:06 PM
Warren,glad you are having good results with the Nobler.  I have had three of them at various times of my modeling.  I aint counting the ARF Nobler, guess that is really four of them. 
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Warren Leadbeatter on March 04, 2007, 03:25:14 AM
Hi Guys

Just got back from the Hunter Valley Championships. Thanks for all your help and advice. The Nobler and I came in 2nd Place in the Classic Stunt.

Cheers
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on March 04, 2007, 07:34:48 AM
That's a great job, Warren!  y1
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Tom Niebuhr on March 04, 2007, 10:17:33 AM
Warren,
That is a beautiful paint scheme.

Randy,
That is the best summation of fuels, etc that I have seen. Thankyou from us all.

To All,
The Fox statements on limited break in required  ("No special break in is required other than careful flying") has an untold story behind it.

Several years ago, while John Lowry was still working at Fox, Bob Gieseke and I special ordered some Fox .35s, requesting that they be fitted tight. We did this so that we can control our own lap-in and break-in.

John told me, at the time, that the newer Foxes are intentionally fitted looser because most people do not want to spend time breaking in engines.
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on March 04, 2007, 02:38:38 PM
(snip)
To All,
The Fox statements on limited break in required  ("No special break in is required other than careful flying") has an untold story behind it.

Several years ago, while John Lowry was still working at Fox, Bob Gieseke and I special ordered some Fox .35s, requesting that they be fitted tight. We did this so that we can control our own lap-in and break-in.

John told me, at the time, that the newer Foxes are intentionally fitted looser because most people do not want to spend time breaking in engines.

Hi Tom,

Just curious............. were those "sandcast" 35s y'all oredered?????????
(I mean, know how old you are and all............. ;D ;D )

your buddy,
Bill <><
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Tom Niebuhr on March 04, 2007, 03:56:53 PM
Hi Tom,

Just curious............. were those "sandcast" 35s y'all oredered?????????
(I mean, know how old you are and all............. ;D ;D )

your buddy,
Bill <><

Bill,

You old man you..., The 1st time I personally saw a sand cast Fox, they were out of production 20 years.. I am just a kid who doesn't intend to grow up!
Title: Re: Nobler Question
Post by: Bill Little on March 04, 2007, 04:58:02 PM
**)**)**)**)**)

;D

Yeah, I *think* Gail, and I, have been married about a month longer (or is it shorter??) than you and Linda.  Say *Hello* to her from us!

Bill <><