Bought propellor tip to stop propellors breaking - how to put on?

workaccount

Attached are the pics.

How will I put this on to the propellor shaft though? The tip coming out of the propellor tip has to be facing towards the actual motor I think.

coolwings

This is an "indoors flying prop adapter".
It's suitable for low power model planes only. eg toy planes and models up to say 400 grams. Not safe in high power models.


Remove the threaded prop adapter projecting form your gearbox at present. (assuming it can be removed - this is unclear from photo)
Fit the adapter. The thin shaft projects forwards. The drilled hole goes onto the gearbox output shaft. Lock on with two screws.
A suitable size prop goes onto the thin shaft.
A rubber band goes over the locking screw one side, across the prop and over the screw on the other side, until the band is tight.

Photo of a similar type one in use:

workaccount

Cheers. Mine is actually a hobbyzone super cub. I've heard of others using prop savers (now have correct name!) on these. I'm going to open it up this evening and have a look again but I think the prop shaft is connected straight into the gear.


I also got new wheels which don't fit on my landing gear well at all. I have attached more pictures.

In IMG_13230 you can see how sideways the wheels are. On 1231 I have the wheel pushed all the way out to the edge just to show how much space there is and 1232 albeit abit blurry further shows the space.

On 1233 I moved the wheel to the inside to show the threading. Should I just cut some of the shaft off with a hacksaw and rethread it or is there some sort of bracket I should be looking at?

Cheers.

coolwings

workaccount wrote: »

Cheers. Mine is actually a hobbyzone super cub.....
I also got new wheels which don't fit on my landing gear well at all. I have attached more pictures....In IMG_13230 you can see how sideways the wheels are. .... Should I just cut some of the shaft off with a hacksaw and rethread it or is there some sort of bracket I should be looking at?

Yeah ... "prop saver" is the phrase they coined .... but some props need more saving than others! Depends a lot on the make/quality.

Is such a model really worth all that effort? It will still be marginal flier (in all but still air) after your efforts, and being made of depron it's not going to last long unless you're a good flier and really gentle with it.
If I gave one like that to my (learner) son to fly - I would tell him to toss the wheels in the bin and belly land it, and fly it at a lighter weight so as to get better use of the available power.

But if you wish ... you can sort out the wheels in about 30 seconds with 4 x 3mm collars.
Or you can use a washer, steadied (by a rubber band fragment tied on / piece of biro refill tube) behind it, and with a blob of epoxy over as a "quick & dirty fix" to the problem.

The rubber band prop adapter is appropriate to the power of the model, and it can likely be fitted just by ignoring the silly threads on the gearbox output shaft , and tightening the adapter with the locking screws will destroy the threads.
That would be ok because those threads are only there for putting a rubbishy plastic prop on in the first place, their plastic props break amazingly easily, and I guess you will not want to fit that particular type of prop again.

workaccount

coolwings wrote: »

Yeah ... "prop saver" is the phrase they coined .... but some props need more saving than others! Depends a lot on the make/quality.

Is such a model really worth all that effort? It will still be marginal flier (in all but still air) after your efforts, and being made of depron it's not going to last long unless you're a good flier and really gentle with it.
If I gave one like that to my (learner) son to fly - I would tell him to toss the wheels in the bin and belly land it, and fly it at a lighter weight so as to get better use of the available power.

But if you wish ... you can sort out the wheels in about 30 seconds with 4 x 3mm collars.
Or you can use a washer, steadied (by a rubber band fragment tied on / piece of biro refill tube) behind it, and with a blob of epoxy over as a "quick & dirty fix" to the problem.

The rubber band prop adapter is appropriate to the power of the model, and it can likely be fitted just by ignoring the silly threads on the gearbox output shaft , and tightening the adapter with the locking screws will destroy the threads.
That would be ok because those threads are only there for putting a rubbishy plastic prop on in the first place, their plastic props break amazingly easily, and I guess you will not want to fit that particular type of prop again.

Coolwings...From frequenting this board I see that you are very experienced and have alot of knowledge also.

I just find it strange that in many places on the net the super cub is praised as being one of the best beginner planes out there. Also, I spent over a hundred euros on it so I intend to look after at and I am enjoying making little mods and learning along the way!

coolwings

Don't find it strange the net says it's a good plane, that is where it's sold. And a Supercub IS a good plane type. I did one for my son for his first plane. But not this one.

A Supercub is a good beginner plane design. Any real Piper Cub is a trainer plane. Remember however that this particular model is not a real Cub ... it is a model of a Cub with changes made inside.

They sell it with 27Am radio gear ... illegal here, and sharing a waveband inhabited by Irish CB radio users who move around while using their transmission gear. You may have clear air when taking off, but crash 30 seconds later because a car drove by on the local road.

At first inspection the motor is right too. The geared 400 motor is a tried and tested power unit for models of this size.
But then they put in a 7 cell pack to drive it? Nobody uses 6 or 7 cells in model planes that will fly outdoors.
In Ireland we would normally use a 10 cell pack after gearing, or an 8 cell pack direct drive (no gearbox), for a prop rpm of at least 50% more. Believe me 50% extra power makes a difference.

And as for "HobbyZone’s Innovative Anti-Crash Technology" .... Well HAR HAR HAR!

So they took a nice plane and "yellowpacked it" .... under-radiod it, underpowered it, put on a fragile plastic prop, put in a low voltage battery which low voltage therefore allowed a cheap 6-7 cell charger to complete the deal.
It's like a nice loooking car with a moped engine.

This particular plane is for a niche "in between" toy planes and model planes in power, design and performance.
Yes it flies. Keep it in calm weather.
Please don't get cross with me when I compare it to models and say it lacks power and speed. I am only saying what you can reasonably expect, and what you should not expect to get from this model.

Fixing this one at any significant cost is not a good way to use your money especially when there are better planes out there to move on up to.

And believe me ... it WILL fly a lot better with no wheels.
That is because reducing weight and air resistance but keeping the same power is the same as making it a bit more powerful.
During flight this particular Supercub definitely needs increased power and speed far more than it needs wheels.
Even with double the power I would leave the wheels off. try it that way and see for yourself.

workaccount

coolwings wrote: »

Don't find it strange the net says it's a good plane, that is where it's sold. And a Supercub IS a good plane type. I did one for my son for his first plane. But not this one.

A Supercub is a good beginner plane design. Any real Piper Cub is a trainer plane. Remember however that this particular model is not a real Cub ... it is a model of a Cub with changes made inside.

They sell it with 27Am radio gear ... illegal here, and sharing a waveband inhabited by Irish CB radio users who move around while using their transmission gear. You may have clear air when taking off, but crash 30 seconds later because a car drove by on the local road.

At first inspection the motor is right too. The geared 400 motor is a tried and tested power unit for models of this size.
But then they put in a 7 cell pack to drive it? Nobody uses 6 or 7 cells in model planes that will fly outdoors.
In Ireland we would normally use a 10 cell pack after gearing, or an 8 cell pack direct drive (no gearbox), for a prop rpm of at least 50% more. Believe me 50% extra power makes a difference.

And as for "HobbyZone’s Innovative Anti-Crash Technology" .... Well HAR HAR HAR!

So they took a nice plane and "yellowpacked it" .... under-radiod it, underpowered it, put on a fragile plastic prop, put in a low voltage battery which low voltage therefore allowed a cheap 6-7 cell charger to complete the deal.
It's like a nice loooking car with a moped engine.

This particular plane is for a niche "in between" toy planes and model planes in power, design and performance.
Yes it flies. Keep it in calm weather.
Please don't get cross with me when I compare it to models and say it lacks power and speed. I am only saying what you can reasonably expect, and what you should not expect to get from this model.

Fixing this one at any significant cost is not a good way to use your money especially when there are better planes out there to move on up to.

And believe me ... it WILL fly a lot better with no wheels.
That is because reducing weight and air resistance but keeping the same power is the same as making it a bit more powerful.
During flight this particular Supercub definitely needs increased power and speed far more than it needs wheels.
Even with double the power I would leave the wheels off. try it that way and see for yourself.

Right well it seems to be praised around on forums not even affiliated with business so it does not seem to be all marketing.

From what you are saying though it further clarifies my thoughts on it at the moment that it is abit light and does not respond that accurately to my input on the controls. The weather also has to be very calm to enjoy flying it.

I feel as if I have learned abit on this plane anyway and learned alot also on my simulation software and I know I will go nitro in the future (petrol would probably be a little expensive). Dya reckon I should just get another better quality electric cub type plane or a nitro as my next. I am at the stages now that I just want to learn how to get the plane to go exactly where I want to go within a specific area....for these I feel as if I need something that controls more accurately. I'm not at the stage yet to go practising aerobatic maneuvers or the like but I would like to have ailerons.

For whats it worth I actually invested a nice bit in a good battery charger and power supply. I would still like a nitro though and would not mind getting that as the next (I love the noise). I suppose I could get another electric then at some stage to make use of that investment.

Cheers.

coolwings

A better battery will absolutely transform that Supercub of yours, upgrade the prop too if you change the battery.

There is a lot to be said in favour of having both glowfuel and electric model planes, they both have advantages.
I do think that most folks that have both, tend to drift towards electric over time, and reduce it to one or two glow models. The electric is easier and handier and cleaner. Over a certain quality it beats glowfuel hands down for power too, but at a slightly dearer price.
That is enough to do it over a period for someone who has both types.

But the real way to decide? It's very simple ..... What do YOU like? Not anyone else. YOU! You have to enjoy flying your own models or it is not the right hobby for you.
It is also a fact that as time passes, what you prefer most will change. And you should change your models then, to suit your new taste, so as to keep the fun in it.

On the electric models exclusively .... we tend to use common enough models, but we tend to forget the recommended power and use a lot more, esp here in windy old Ireland.
150 watts of power per kilo of plane makes it interesting (like a glowfuel trainer on full throttle), 250 watts per kilo gives great speed and aerobatics, and at 350 watts / kg we have very hot model planes in electric.
Glowfuel can't really touch a 450W/kg model but comes close, if it is a tournament engine setup and burning 30% nitro to about 350W/kg.

To give you a figure to compare with and get an idea - you might be flying on approx 75 watts/kg at the moment.

workaccount

I think I'll get something that I have to build from scratch anyway (a nice project that would take 2-3 weeks max.) and put a nitro engine into it. It would have to be capable of high power/speed.

I'm thinking of something half way between aerobatic and "learner cub type" with room for a powerful engine (250watts/kg at least I suppose) that I can keep at half throttle or less until I build up some confidence. I would not want to go with foam again as I think it's too light for "windy" Ireland.

Thanks for the advice so far.

coolwings

Well a forty size glow engine says about 750 watts in the catalogue, but actually more like 600 watts when running at the rpm that we really get with proper size propellers fitted.

A decent trainer with a 60" wing should weigh 2 1/2 kg , and that makes 600W/2.5kg = 240 watts per kilo. And at half throttle thats 120 watts/kg. Plenty of power for flying on half throttle, and access to double that whenever you apply full throttle.

This is a tried and proven formula. There are very many ARTF planes produced to fit this measurement.

If you choose to go it in a leccie:
You can of course also get the same glow model and fit a similar power electric motor (600W) as a 40 engine. The starting, cutting out, and tuning problems of glowfuel disappear, but the battery will cost the same as liquid fuel consumption for the 1st year.

workaccount

coolwings wrote: »

Well a forty size glow engine says about 750 watts in the catalogue, but actually more like 600 watts when running at the rpm that we really get with proper size propellers fitted.

A decent trainer with a 60" wing should weigh 2 1/2 kg , and that makes 600W/2.5kg = 240 watts per kilo. And at half throttle thats 120 watts/kg. Plenty of power for flying on half throttle, and access to double that whenever you apply full throttle.

This is a tried and proven formula. There are very many ARTF planes produced to fit this measurement.

If you choose to go it in a leccie:
You can of course also get the same glow model and fit a similar power electric motor (600W) as a 40 engine. The starting, cutting out, and tuning problems of glowfuel disappear, but the battery will cost the same as liquid fuel consumption for the 1st year.

Ok. Can you calculate power from cubage of engine or does it depend on the type of engine?

I'm actually looking at a "Kadet LT-40" and it can take up to .46cc engine. What kind of power would this produce?

coolwings

No need to wporry about power with that choice. A Kadet LT-40 would behave very nicely with a .46 engine inside.

It is also a pleasant model for "a first build", with a clear manual and good quality wood.

workaccount

coolwings wrote: »

No need to wporry about power with that choice. A Kadet LT-40 would behave very nicely with a .46 engine inside.

It is also a pleasant model for "a first build", with a clear manual and good quality wood.

And I'm looking forward to it already. What tools do you need for this or do you just put them together with epoxy or similiar.

After spending a while searching on the net there does not seem to be great availability for the LT-40.

I've requested a quote from green hobbies in Dublin but if it's not competitive I will have to keep searching on the net.

Thanks for all the advice though mate. If I'm not back before I will defo be back looking for information on glow fuel engines I'm sure!! One of my main questions will be 2 stroke vs. 4 stroke. I'm sure I will find a good article out there explaining this though. Perhaps 2 stroke is glow and 4 stroke is petrol anyway which would rule out the 4 straight away.

I'm just going to buy the kit for now and buy the engine then when it's built. I will also have to get a radio. I'll try to pick up a used radio I'd say.

coolwings

Everything about 4 stroke is better than 2 stroke, except price.
In other words the 2 stroke engine is the cheaper type to buy and it does the job ok.
But a 4 stroke is quieter, longer flights per tankful, and is powerful from idle to top, whereas the 2 stroke is a guzzler, noisy, and only powerful after you get throttled up to high rpm.
A 4 stroke exhaust is tiny by comparison with the big 2 stroke sausage mufflers, which allows for better concealment inside the cowling for scale reasons.

Remember - you are going to (UNINTENTIONALLY!) thump it into the ground at 20mph once or twice, during the hacking it stages of learning, that's why it might be wise to put a simple 2 stroke cheapie in there for the time being.
Then later on, upgrade to a nicer but dearer 4 stroke.

Glues: Epoxy is very strong but heavy. So I only use it in maximum load bearing areas .... wing joining, tail gluing on, engine firewall and undercarraige mounting areas. The rest of an airframe (esp wings) comes out lighter in weight if fast white glue like eg Ponal Express, cyano superglue, or PVA are used sparingly.

Both the 2 and 4 stroke engines are glowfuel / nitro fuel / model fuel.
It has been found that petrol does not work as well as methanol based fuels until engine size reaches higher piston size, like the 18 cc - 50 cc engines used in 1/3rd to 1/2 scale air models, and in 1/5th scale model cars. At that size petrol is cheaper and very good, but in smaller engines it isn't as reliable as we need.
There is also the problem causes by spark ignition in a petrol engine which generates pulses of radio interference so strong they can easily destroy a receiver nearby in the model. The glowplug has none of these issues, whether in a 2 or a 4 stroke engine.

workaccount

I still have not ordered the new plane yet as other expenses have taken priority.

I'm still messing around with the supercub...I installed bullet connectors on it there a few weeks back and went out to fly today but one of the connectors came off from the plane side.

It was such a pain to get them on as I had to get someone to hold the plane upside down for me while I was soldering it on as the wire was so short.
I'm not going to try that one again so I'll have to replace the wire.

The wire that came with the plane is quite thin and the wire that's on my uprated batteries from cheapbatterypacks.com is 18 awg. Is it ok to put 18 awg onto the plane aswell then even though the old batteries (which I still use) will be using a much thinner wire?

Thanks.

RC car fanatic

They sell it with 27Am radio gear ... illegal here, and sharing a waveband inhabited by Irish CB radio users who move around while using their transmission gear. You may have clear air when taking off, but crash 30 seconds later because a car drove by on the local road.


I thought 27am was legal here...a bit off topic but whats a nitro cars legal frequency?

coolwings

RC car fanatic wrote: »

....I thought 27am was legal here...a bit off topic but whats a nitro cars legal frequency?

27AM and 40FM are legal for surface models ....