News:


  • May 03, 2024, 10:28:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: K+B Rear Rotor .40  (Read 781 times)

Offline Clint Taylor

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Pilot
  • *
  • Posts: 11
K+B Rear Rotor .40
« on: May 27, 2010, 06:16:03 AM »
   I have an old pan rat with a K+B  rear rotor .40 that I bought about a year ago.  I tried to run it recently and was having trouble with it.  I used an electric starter on it, which may have led to my problem.  The engine would run in short erratic bursts.  I finally checked the tank plumbing and found that it was hooked up backwards.
   
   With the lines hooked up right the engine will turn a APC 8x8 at about 18000 RPM.  My problem now is that the prop adapter is slipping on the shaft.  The adapter has a allen set screw and a roll pin.  The roll pin must be sheared to allow the adapter to turn.  Does anyone have an idea as to the construction of this engine?  Any ideas on repair of this?  Will it damage the engine to run it with the set screw alone holding the adapter?

    I want to fly this plane just for fun as it is very much like a plane that I flew when I was about fifteen years old.  I am curious to see what speed it can do. 

              Thanks for any help,
                             Clint

Offline don Burke

  • 2014 Supporters
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1027
Re: K+B Rear Rotor .40
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2010, 09:55:36 AM »
The roll pin was put in by K&B because the set screw would not hold the prop drive spool from turning under normal use.
For normal disassembly support the collet and push the roll pin out.  If it is sheared off, the entire spool can be removed with something like a gear puller, first remove the set screw and the threaded shaft.  Then the pin can be removed from both the spool and the end of the crankshaft.  If the crank end is broken to allow the spool to spin, you'll be looking for a new crank!
don Burke AMA 843
Menifee, CA

Offline Clint Taylor

  • 2018 Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • New Pilot
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: K+B Rear Rotor .40
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2010, 04:55:51 AM »
    Thanks for the reply Don.   I went ahead and removed the allen screw and used a punch to drive the shaft end out of the spool.  The crank shaft end is boogered up some what from the spool and allen fitting slipping.  I drove the broken roll pin pieces out of the spool and crank.  I will try to find a new roll pin today.   I don't think the shaft would survive a lot of running but it should be fine for some speed runs.  

    I am going to try flying with some .018 braided lines.  I think this should be strong enough as the plane is relatively light.  I am curious as to what kind of speeds I will see.  When I was a kid flying a pan rat we were seeing about 120-135 MPH on 40/40 fuel.  I am hoping this thing will do 110 or so on 10% nitro fuel.  I am going to use Sig 10/20 castor oil fuel for my first runs.

    I stopped flying in 1975 when I was 17 years old.  I picked up the hobby again about three years ago.  I started out with a couple of the Bratco RTF Norvel powered planes to see if I would still enjoy flying.  After my first flight in over thirty years I promptly fell down.  I did have fun and have since put together a couple of Flite Streaks, a Super Clown and a Cardinal.  All of these planes have been ARFS.  When I was a kid flying I never got past wingovers and some inside loops.  I can do loops and lazy eights and fly inverted with no trouble now.  I taught myself to fly RC with a RTF electric plane and proceeded to fill my shop with way too many RC planes.

    The basics of CL are easier to pick up than RC, but I have found that RC is easier to move on to more aerobatics due to the ability to experiment at safe altitude.  I live south of Carlsbad, New Mexico and have several hundred acres of open land around me.  I keep an area mowed for a circle and use a couple of cement siding boards for a take off area.  I fly RC at home and at the local RC field at the city gun range north of town.   I plan to try flying the rat at the RC field to amaze and amuse the RC fliers.

    ARFS have allowed me to progress in flying skill in CL and RC much faster than if I were flying planes that I built from kits or scratch.  I don't have the fear of crashing that was so strong when I was risking planes that I had many hours of work and hard earned money in when I was young.  I built Flite Streaks and Ringmasters among others when I was a kid.  I saved all of my old engines in a tool box and have found that they all run fine after 35 years of mechanical limbo.  I have Fox fifteens and a 36X, an Enya .35,  K+B .40 and .15 rear rotary, and several Cox motors, among others.  I fly mostly RC now, but I am still trying to improve my CL skills.  I own a water well drilling and service business that takes up most of my time, as I have no employees.  I have several kits of CL and RC planes that I hope to build someday, but for now ARFS are all that I have time for.

    I am very happy to be back in this hobby and look forward to more flying and building in the future.

                                    Clint

Online Paul Smith

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5801
Re: K+B Rear Rotor .40
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2010, 05:44:50 AM »
I've still got a 1970 rat with one of those.

It went 150 MPH on the first run and the engine blew on the second run.  I was able to but a used replacement engine, but it wasn't as fast as the first, only about 130.  It's still flyable and it did 126 as a Formula 40 Speed plane last year.

As Big Art mentioned ion his bio, some of the early K&B 40 like this had the crankpins installed crooked and didn't last long.  I assume my original was on of those.  Due to military service, mine set the box for three years before I flew it, so I didn't bother sending it back.  Furthermore, by then there were four generations of better engines in the event.

I use .018" solid stainless steel Marlinline.  The current spec for Formula 40 is up to .020".
.018" stranded is a bit below the safety standard, even according to 1970 rules.
Paul Smith


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here