Author Topic: Time Machine (Read 6106 times)

Ron Hess Sr · « **on:** December 22, 2010, 02:31:26 PM »

I'm planning on building a Time machine 60 version but when looking at Tom Dixon site there is a T.M 1 and T.m 2 versions ,does anyone have pics of the two planes to see the difference in the two?

Thank You and Merry Christmas. Ron in Indianapolis

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #1 on:** December 22, 2010, 10:47:28 PM »

The attached pictures are of regular Time Machines, essentially a 90% stock Patternmaster. The Time Machine mark II plan has a conventional Noblerish looking fuselage. I don't know of any Time Machine Mk IIs being built, so I don't have any pics of those...

Bill Little · « **Reply #2 on:** December 22, 2010, 10:54:09 PM »

Steve has flown a Time Machine more than anyone else on the planet!

I didn't even know there was a Mk. 2............

Merry Christmas!

proparc · « **Reply #3 on:** December 23, 2010, 12:06:28 AM »

The deal with the Time Machine was that cats were not really doing it the way it should have been. The deal IMHO, was to keep the same power as a Pattermaster and reduce the size of the plane. Cats kept putting ST 51's in the ship, and it never really took off. I have seen a number of them fly, all with 50 class power of one or another and they all were marginal.

Bill Little · « **Reply #4 on:** December 23, 2010, 12:16:14 AM »

Quote from: proparc on December 23, 2010, 12:06:28 AM

The deal with the Time Machine was that cats were not really doing it the way it should have been. The deal IMHO, was to keep the same power as a Pattermaster and reduce the size of the plane. Cats kept putting ST 51's in the ship, and it never really took off. I have seen a number of them fly, all with 50 class power of one or another and they all were marginal.

HI Milton,

Steve Fitton has been flying one since the rocks cooled down. His ones have been powered by the DS .60 Lite. I think a good ST .60 would be better, or a PA. 61-.65, as the DS isn't the strongest engine in its class. But Steve has made his program work as good as it possibly can.

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #5 on:** December 23, 2010, 07:30:44 AM »

Quote from: proparc on December 23, 2010, 12:06:28 AM

The deal with the Time Machine was that cats were not really doing it the way it should have been. The deal IMHO, was to keep the same power as a Pattermaster and reduce the size of the plane. Cats kept putting ST 51's in the ship, and it never really took off. I have seen a number of them fly, all with 50 class power of one or another and they all were marginal.

Part of the reason for that was that, as drawn, the TM 60 nose only has room for a 5 ounce tank. It pretty much takes a plastic tank and some nose modifications to cram 6+ ounces in there for the tigre 60. It can be done, though. The yellow and blue model in the picture above has the tigre 60 in it and flies very well.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #6 on:** December 23, 2010, 09:56:07 AM »

Yes I am going to high jack this thread. I just pulled the Pattern Master plans out of the envelope that Big Jim designed. With notes from his wife apologizing for the time it took to get them to me. What I would like to know, is there a 40 size version. I also know Tom Dixon has done a lot of designs on this vein, but haven't looked at his site for some time.

Leester · « **Reply #7 on:** December 23, 2010, 10:05:34 AM »

If your talking the Time Machine there is a 40 version from Tom Dixon. I had one for sale last summer but nobody was interested.

Ron Hess Sr · « **Reply #8 on:** December 23, 2010, 10:06:54 AM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on December 23, 2010, 09:56:07 AM

Yes I am going to high jack this thread. I just pulled the Pattern Master plans out of the envelope that Big Jim designed. With notes from his wife apologizing for the time it took to get them to me. What I would like to know, is there a 40 size version. I also know Tom Dixon has done a lot of designs on this vein, but haven't looked at his site for some time.

Yes there is.TIME MACHINE 40 - Greenaway aerodynamics with Dixon simplified construction, sized for Double Star .40, OS FP, or even Fox .35. 51" span, 526 sq. in. area. (wing core and kit also available). CAD plan by Pat Johnston. $10.00 as per site. also thank you all for the feed back. Merry Christmas to all. Ron in indy

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #9 on:** December 23, 2010, 10:25:47 AM »

There are three versions of the "standard" Time Machine, 40, 50, and 60. The 50 is around 600 or so squares and aimed at the LA-46, tigre 51, etc.

I have built and flown all three versions, and the bigger they get, the better they fly. I commented on this fact once to Jose Modesto at a Brodaks contest once, and he grinned and said that the full size Patternmaster was that much better then the TM 60. The 40 and 50 do fly tolerably well, but it seems that a pure CAD or photocopier scaledown does not seem quite right, like something in the moments gets lost in the translation. I think in the realm of a 40 size airplane any good classic design would fly just as well as the Time Machine 40. I would hesitate to try a DS 40 or Fox 35 in a TM 40, I think the thick wing would give the smaller engines more than they could handle. Down in Texas there is a cat named Jim Svitko who has been flying Time Machines longer than I have, and he has gotten the 40 size ones to work really well with the LA-46. His planes have his own design fuselage and the overall effect is much better looking than the stock Time Machine.
I'd like to try a full size Patternmaster someday, but it will have to wait till Randy gets more PA-75s made. After flying Banjock's Patternmaster sized Vista with the 75, I think putting any less motor in a Patternmaster (well, ok, less than a PA-65 SE) would be tantamount to a crime since you could never tap the planes full potential.

proparc · « **Reply #10 on:** December 23, 2010, 10:26:08 AM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on December 23, 2010, 09:56:07 AM

Yes I am going to high jack this thread.

An honest man.

Brett Buck · « **Reply #11 on:** December 23, 2010, 10:35:33 AM »

Quote from: Steve Fitton on December 23, 2010, 07:30:44 AM

Part of the reason for that was that, as drawn, the TM 60 nose only has room for a 5 ounce tank. It pretty much takes a plastic tank and some nose modifications to cram 6+ ounces in there for the tigre 60. It can be done, though. The yellow and blue model in the picture above has the tigre 60 in it and flies very well.

How long is the tank compartment!? I have gotten ~8 ounces into 6" (and wide enough for a RO-Jett 61)and that includes having to have it fit under the header. Trying to keep to only 6 oz is a very severe power limitation, even for a piped engine, much less a 4-2 break motor.

If you send me the dimensions I would be happy to try to design a tank for it.

Brett

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #12 on:** December 23, 2010, 10:39:53 AM »

Quote from: proparc on December 23, 2010, 12:06:28 AM

The deal with the Time Machine was that cats were not really doing it the way it should have been. The deal IMHO, was to keep the same power as a Pattermaster and reduce the size of the plane. Cats kept putting ST 51's in the ship, and it never really took off. I have seen a number of them fly, all with 50 class power of one or another and they all were marginal.

Perhaps, but I think the ST-51 would not be that bad in a TM 60. It makes about the same power as the DS60L, and you can run a bit smaller prop which won't hurt a bit-when you start running full 13" props on a smallish plane like the Time Machine 60 it becomes easy to overpower the plane with yaw in maneuvers. My own 2 cents is that I think it is often easier to manage a plane with a little less power than trying to figure out how to reliably detune *too much* power. Wind can add enough energy to get the underpowered plane through a nice crisp pattern, whereas too much power plus wind gets you off to the races in the maneuvers and a miserable flight.
I think the Time Machine ST51 package, would be a nice low cost package for the intermediate pilot who wants a bigger plane feel but does not have lots of cash piled up, or is afraid of crashing, the more expensive pro stunt motors.

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #13 on:** December 23, 2010, 10:42:09 AM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on December 23, 2010, 10:35:33 AM

How long is the tank compartment!? I have gotten ~8 ounces into 6" (and wide enough for a RO-Jett 61)and that includes having to have it fit under the header. Trying to keep to only 6 oz is a very severe power limitation, even for a piped engine, much less a 4-2 break motor.

If you send me the dimensions I would be happy to try to design a tank for it.

Brett

Stock tank compartment length was 5", with the Greenaway style "V" deflectors and tank floor setup. Dixon drew it up based on the 5 ounces the DS-60 used at Atlanta's 900' elevation, and it does limit options, albeit at Muncie mine worked just right on 5 ounces of Powermaster 10 or 15% R/C fuel, running between 6:10 and 6:24.
I appreciate the offer of tank design, but expend no effort on my account, as my Time Machine is being retired to local contest duty and eventually the DS motors will go to nostalgia or profile models. There may be some other's who have need of a bigger tank, but the Time Machine's heyday (in the southeast at least) was over ten years ago and you see very few of them these days, so I'm not sure of the demand for such a tank.

Bill Little · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2010, 04:02:42 PM »

Stevie Boy, I have a surprise just about ready for you to be unveiled this Spring. All I really need now is a new compressor.

It has connections to Steve Buso.

Merry Christmas!
Big Bear

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2010, 05:47:54 PM »

Quote from: Bill Little on December 23, 2010, 04:02:42 PM

Stevie Boy, I have a surprise just about ready for you to be unveiled this Spring. All I really need now is a new compressor. It has connections to Steve Buso.

Merry Christmas!
Big Bear

Somebody must be working on a Super Kestrel....

Merry Christmas to you and Aaron and the families!

Thomas J. Weedman II · « **Reply #16 on:** December 23, 2010, 07:06:58 PM »

here is my dad's "modified" time machine built by Tom Dixon

T.J. Weedman

John Lindberg · « **Reply #17 on:** December 25, 2010, 09:59:10 AM »

Steve, how does the Dreadnought compare with your TM 60? I always liked that plane, one of our club members is building one (TM 60). Merry Christmas from Northern Va., John Lindberg.

Bill Little · « **Reply #18 on:** December 25, 2010, 10:41:05 AM »

Merry Christmas, Ty!

Give the "Kept Foam" a shot. Works fine and saves the good balsa.

Doing a foam wing like that, myself, right now! Instead of at least (4) sheets of 1/16th" X 4" and (

sheets of 1/16th" X 3" of primo weight balsa, It drops to less than (

total sheets, some of which can be left overs from the ends of other sheets.

Big Bear

Pat Johnston · « **Reply #19 on:** December 25, 2010, 11:26:44 AM »

Merry Christmas, my good buddy, Ty and all others. This thread got me to open up my files on the three TM's. The TM40 is 526 squares, the TM50 is 574, and the TM60 is 650. I would use the LA46 in the TM40, the ST51 in the TM50 and the ST60 in the TM60. Ty, I can send you PDF files of the three if you would like a reference or I can make you paper copies if you like. If you use good contest grade balsa, there is no reason the TM60 won't be good with the ST51. Advisedly, Tom Dixon used film on the wings and a good rattle-can technique on the rest, as I recall. This will really help to keep the weight down.If you end up with a 55-58 ounce plane that will be a great flyer. Once again, holler if you want plans.
Pat

Steve Fitton · « **Reply #20 on:** December 25, 2010, 12:49:10 PM »

Quote from: John Lindberg on December 25, 2010, 09:59:10 AM

Steve, how does the Dreadnought compare with your TM 60? I always liked that plane, one of our club members is building one (TM 60). Merry Christmas from Northern Va., John Lindberg.

I don't think you can compare. Personally, I think the qualities of the powertrain are inseparable from the flying qualities of the plane itself. Trying to compare a piped PA powered ship to a loop scavenged conventional setup is like comparing apples to lizards. You really notice this not when you fly a pipe ship for the first time, but when you fly a pipe ship a dozen or so times and then fly a non-piped model right away.

Allen Brickhaus · « **Reply #21 on:** December 25, 2010, 03:42:58 PM »

Quote from: Thomas J. Weedman II on December 23, 2010, 07:06:58 PM

here is my dad's "modified" time machine built by Tom Dixon

T.J. Weedman

Nice lines on the Weedman model. I like this, reminds me of my Envoy VI.

Allen

Allen Brickhaus · « **Reply #22 on:** December 25, 2010, 03:47:04 PM »

Envoy I as flown in 1985 and published in the Anniversary issue of Model Aviation in 1986. ST .46 for power, now I would use a piped .65 like in the Envoy VI.

Allen

rustler · « **Reply #23 on:** December 25, 2010, 03:59:41 PM »

I believe Tom Dixon designed the Time Machine to be a quick build. I guess with more modern power plants available one could do a reverse design exercise and build a Time Machine to original Patternmaster numbers. Or would that be a Patternmaster to Time Machine construction?

Bill Little · « **Reply #24 on:** December 25, 2010, 04:22:56 PM »

Quote from: rustler on December 25, 2010, 03:59:41 PM

I believe Tom Dixon designed the Time Machine to be a quick build. I guess with more modern power plants available one could do a reverse design exercise and build a Time Machine to original Patternmaster numbers. Or would that be a Patternmaster to Time Machine construction?

HI Ian,

Actually there isn't a whole lot of real difference in the construction of the original Big Jim Patternmaster. At least not according to the plans that I have of both. Fuselage construction style is pretty much the same sans cowling (the Time Machine is drawn for no cowl). Same foam wing (unless you use the kept foam technique, which IS quicker), can't remember the stab/elev........ Plastic wing covering and rattle can paint are MUCH quicker than Big Jim's dope and paper covering. I don't think the difference in building time would be very much if any except for the finishing process and cowl.

Bill