Home › Forums › Free Flight › All Gas › Satillite 320 engine choice
- This topic has 20 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by Scott Lapraik.
12/05/2007 at 4:04 pm #40743
Good day forum readers! I am about to start building a Satellite 320 and due to it’s sq. in. area I was thanking of loading it up with a Cox 09 Tee Dee. Have any of you tried this yet? And what are your opinions on this. Is the engine to much? Would a 09 medallion be better? Or should I stay with the high performance 049/061’s? Thanks for your input. The plan is to run it in “A” classic gas if I use the 09’s.
12/06/2007 at 2:11 am #45019DAN BERRYParticipant
Go ahead and put the 09 TD in it.12/06/2007 at 10:16 pm #45020RONALD BENNETTParticipant
Engine choice (power range) all depends on which Satellite version you are talking about. Also, you CAN build any of them stout enough to handle far more power than they were developed to use, but at a great weight penalty (and the associated loss of glide performance).
The original Satellite 320 (based on the 1956 Satellite 600) should not be used with anything more powerful than a Holland Hornet or a worn TD. The two lightweight spars are not strong enough to handle a modern high-power 1/2A engine, let alone a more powerful and much heavier (than the HH) .09 engines. This is the model that was kitted by Midwest.
The Series 70 semi-geodetic will handle the power of a modern .049/.061 but is heavier than the early 320. This led to Bob and Bill Hunter developing the GLH series (Goes Like Hell). This highly evolved and developed design will handle hot high power engines and glides like a dream.
Team Satellite12/07/2007 at 2:28 pm #45021
Ron, thanks for the input. I have the 320GLH kitted by competition models. It has alot of stringers in both the wing and the tail. Ought to be an interesting ship!.
Scott12/11/2007 at 3:09 am #45022Timer GuyParticipant
Get yourself a good timer with DT.01/22/2008 at 2:24 pm #45023
Well, I’ve decided to build a custom fuselage for a set of 1/2 A Galaxy wings and Stab. I am reducing the area on the stab by 20%. I am currently about 80% complete with the fuselage and I’m in the process of installing a hard tank. The plan is to go suction first to see if everything works out and than to the hard tank on pressure. My question is what tank capacity should I be looking at for the Tee Dee 09? I have a no. of perfectly tanks at my disposal, i.e. 1/3 oz., 2/3 oz., and 3/4 oz..
Thanks, Scott01/22/2008 at 2:32 pm #45024JIM MOSELEYParticipant
Why build in a tank at all .. and with suction, risk the sometime momentary ‘sag’ at launch which gives the nose enough time to drop before the rpm’s come in again….
I suggest you go pacifier feed right from the start; simple, fast, easy and reliable. I haven’t used a hard tank on a glow engine for over 30 years.01/22/2008 at 5:49 pm #45025AnonymousInactive
I have had problems with needle valve setting with pressure on my TD09.It goes from too lean to flooding with very little adjustment. I wonder if I am the only one.I dont know of any commercially available one with fine thread.I guess crankcase pressure may be a good halfway house.01/22/2008 at 6:43 pm #45026JIM MOSELEYParticipant
I have no tuning problems with stock .09 needles…. check that your needle doesn’t have a broken tip; otherwise file a longer taper to same?01/22/2008 at 6:48 pm #45027
Well I could go either way as far as a hard tank or the bladder pressure. But the question is how much fuel should I have in the bladder/tank!
Scott01/23/2008 at 9:24 pm #45028AnonymousInactive
I would have thought 10cc would suffice.If you use a pressure bladder the extra gets dumped before the glide.I dont know how many cc’s to the fluid ounce. i am too old to remember.01/23/2008 at 9:30 pm #45029
Doc, Thanks for the info. I will convert to ozs. and see what I’ve got on hand. Again, thanks, Scott01/24/2008 at 2:28 pm #45030
Doc, my 1/3 tank is actually a 3/8 ozs. size. Ran the engine last night with both the 3/8 and 2/3 ozs. tanks to see what kind of engine run time I would get. The 3/8 oz. produced a 35 second run at full power and the 2/3’s gave a 95 second engine run time. I am going with the 3/8 oz. at this time and if its not enough well maybe it’s time for the bladder adventure!
Scott01/24/2008 at 2:49 pm #45031Dean McGinnesParticipant
You are getting really good advice about doing away with hard tanks and suction. Trash the thing! Many models have been destroyed by suction feed with the afore-mentioned sag, nose drop, then revs! A typical Free Flight Gas Model (Always Capitalize) accelerates so fast that the fuel will pull away from the spraybar due to inertia. In addition, the engines are very hard to hand start due to fuel feed issues. Needle valve settings will change with the weather during the course of a contest.
Not so with bladder tanks.
Repeat to yourself a hundred times. No more suction, no more suction.
Suction feed is actually MORE COMPLICATED than a bladder tank.
The components are readily available and cheap.
Do yourself a major favor, and go straight to bladders.01/24/2008 at 2:50 pm #45032Dean McGinnesParticipant
Doc, In addition to trash or a bent needle, you may be over-compressed for the nitro content in the fuel. Try adding a gasket under the glowhead, or cutting back on the go-pop.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.