Iron on plastic film also Using G21/46 in Nobler or Vector 40

I am quite sure someone has talked about the different merits of iron on plastic model covering (monokote ect) but what has been found to be the best and easiest to use I have been thinking of using plastic covering on a Nobler and a Vector 40 I am building mainly for the quicker speed of refinishing.

Also has anyone tried a G21/46 in either of these airplanes as I would prefer to fly on longer lines than 60' so I may be able to fly a better looking pattern, actually I would rather use a G21/46 in all my models of 50+ inch wingspan for that matter and sell my new L&J Fox 35's and my new Brodak 40's, that way I would only have to worry about either buying or mixing one particular mix of fuel, well it seems like a good idea to me, after all I use a Super Tigre "V" 60 in my Shark that everyone used to put G21/46's in at one time, surely as long as getting the balance in the right place without putting too much wieght on it cant hurt a model to be slightly over powered.
Comments will be most welcome.

Richard

If one has nothing good to say about another they should not say anything at all

Richard, of course it's a time honored method re: overpowering a plane, and propping and adjusting the run. Lot's of power is addictive for sure.

Both the Nobler and the Vector 40, have about the same wing area, about 545 sq inches, in the case of the Vector.

The problem that could occur, as I see it, is the additional weight of the engine and fuel load, plus the needed lead in the tail to balance all the above.

Your plane could become too heavy to perform as good as it could if it were lighter. It is true, that more horsepower can help over come some weight, but, it's much easier to trim out and competitively fly a more reasonably loaded plane.

On the covering issue thats pretty easy. Ultracote is the easiest to use. It is flexible, sticks well and works at a lower temperature than Super Monokote. It is durable but somewhat susceptible to scratching.

Super Monokote looks the best, has more colors and holds up the best. It is more difficult to apply than Ultracote. Wrinkles are more difficult to remove. It works at a higher temp. It is very strong and can warp surfaces easier than low temp films if not properly applied.

I use both on my RC and CL planes. Skip the cheap stuff, Its cheap for a reason, my experience is either the adhesive is poor or it doesn't have much strength or there are quality issues (poor color match or variations in adhesion etc).

For A ST-46 powered plane I use a 5 1/2 ounce tank...and usually need it. That will be a problem for either the Nobler or Vector. Lots of modern engines put out more power than a ST-46, albeit at a higher RPM. Better to go that route with either of those designs.

I have an ARF Nobler with a 5 1/4 oz steel clunk tank that works well.
http://hangarflying.proboards18.com/index.cgi?board=wire&action=display&thread=1162177986

[photo not recovered: 28576.jpg]


[photo not recovered: 28577.jpg]

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

>I am quite sure someone has talked about the different merits
>of iron on plastic model covering (monokote ect) but what has
>been found to be the best and easiest to use I have been
>thinking of using plastic covering on a Nobler and a Vector 40
>I am building mainly for the quicker speed of refinishing.

I think Super Monokote is still the best - by far.

> Also has anyone tried a G21/46 in either of these airplanes
>as I would prefer to fly on longer lines than 60' so I may be
>able to fly a better looking pattern, actually I would rather
>use a G21/46 in all my models of 50+ inch wingspan for that
>matter and sell my new L&J Fox 35's and my new Brodak
>40's, that way I would only have to worry about either buying
>or mixing one particular mix of fuel, well it seems like a
>good idea to me, after all I use a Super Tigre "V"
>60 in my Shark that everyone used to put G21/46's in at one
>time, surely as long as getting the balance in the right place
>without putting too much wieght on it cant hurt a model to be
>slightly over powered.

Quite a few people have tried the ST46/Nobler and it works OK. It was a pretty hot setup back in 1982. But it's not that easy to make full use of the type of 'power' it puts out and you may not end up with longer lines. Most of the current-production 35-36-40's are more 'powerful' than an ST46 and more suitable for this size airplane.

Longer lines are not that important for ease of flying - if the engine runs nicely there's no problem running shorter lines. My buddies and I are running 62-64 foot lines on 61 to 75 airplanes and we do pretty well most of the time. You can get more room to maneuver with longer lines but it's also possible to have a loss of precision and controllability. I err on the side of making the lines short. Even with a 61-sized stunt plane, you can easily feel increased precision from a 6" change in line length.

Brett

> Quite a few people have tried the ST46/Nobler and it works
>OK. It was a pretty hot setup back in 1982. But it's not that
>easy to make full use of the type of 'power' it puts out and
>you may not end up with longer lines. Most of the
>current-production 35-36-40's are more 'powerful' than an ST46
>and more suitable for this size airplane.
>
> Longer lines are not that important for ease of flying -
>if the engine runs nicely there's no problem running shorter
>lines. My buddies and I are running 62-64 foot lines on 61 to
>75 airplanes and we do pretty well most of the time. You can
>get more room to maneuver with longer lines but it's also
>possible to have a loss of precision and controllability. I
>err on the side of making the lines short. Even with a
>61-sized stunt plane, you can easily feel increased precision
>from a 6" change in line length.
>
> Brett

A couple things here: First, I believe Brett is quoting actual line length(s), not what some commonly do and that is to give a centerline-to-centerline measurement. It can make a big difference...

Secondly, it was not that many years ago that I would have hooted and snorted over the first sentence, second paragraph, in Brett's post. Ah, but it really is true.

Let's look at it from a different perspective. If you cannot comfortably fly CL Stunt with lines that are shorter than the dictates of conventional wisdom, it could be the line length which is giving you fits. But is far more likely your engine and/or the tune of your engine is mildly to wildly substandard.

Dan

Thanks guys for the useful comments the idea of flying on longer lines appealed to me as I am getting older and slower, plus I only restarted flying a couple of years ago after a long lay of from flying anything, due to back and knee injuries followed by surgeries and I am sure any of you that have had either or both might understand where I am coming from. I really think that either the Larry Foster Fox 35's or the Brodak 40's I have will pull a Nobler with no trouble the Fox certainly pulls my Chipmunk very well on 60' lines.
Richard



If one has nothing good to say about another they should not say anything at all