Proper Propeller Rotation Question

Welcome, Sig Skyray. In the old days, some flew CL clockwise to take advantage of engine with RH props providing better line tension. Traditionally nearly all CL is flown with RH props (counterclockwise when viewed from front to back). LH props would allow the torque of the engine to maintain line tension. Since the Cox reedies can be spun either direction, you could use LH props.

However, these are not as available as the RH ones are. This is why there is usually rudder offset to outside of circle and engine thrust offset to outside to compensate for engine torque and line drag. Also outboard wing weight helps to compensate for line weight and cant aircraft to the outside.

One can fly successfully either way.

Welcome to the forums, Skyray, glad you found us.
RH props are easier to find, but like everyone says, you may find some benefit from the LH torque roll, but I've never considered it significant. Then you'll need LH starter springs too.
Rusty

Thank you all for the warm welcome!

Thanks also for the great answers and extra tips.  I'm taking notes.  Your replies have been a big help guys. In conclusion, I think I'll try one of each.

I have a question on the Lil' Wizard and Sig Skyray as well which I'll start in a new post.

It's easy to get confused with RH/LH rotation. Naturally we would think RH from a starting perspective, making it CW rotation, but the tems relate to viewing the prop from a "pilot" perspective.
Welcome.

Rod.

A guy I occasionally fly with has had a couple Skyrays (the latest powered by a Tee Dee) that he likes to fly on 50 foot-plus line because "he likes to see it way up in the sky".

In spite of my suggestions that he keep the thing fairly low, he'd routinely fly it directly overhead, pulling loops and such, with it's Blackwidow hauling it just fine (except for those times when it would suddenly quit, and yard-dart the Skyray).

He runs L/H and R/H props with no real difference difference in the victory or tragedy of his flights, so someone using a little technique ought to have a ball either way the prop spins.





Also, if you haven't considered using Spiderwire for your flying lines, you REALLY should give it a look. The stuff can be a pain as far as tangling, but it's got a fraction of the drag of the classic dacron lines, and I really liked it once I learned to be a bit more careful with it. 15lb strength will handle 1/2A applications

Thanks Kim and Rod for the CW clarification and the Spiderwire tip. I'm looking at Spiderwire and I'm guessing the braided would be the right choice over the monofilament? SpiderWire Stealth® Glow-Vis Braid.

So line length is pilot preference, no hard and fast rules on that. I'm assuming the Lil' Wizard runs on 52' lines because it's heavy and the new pilot has to spin much less?

Greg

Sig Skyray wrote:I'm assuming the Lil' Wizard runs on 52' lines because it's heavy and the new pilot has to spin much less? Greg

Greg, I thought it was a Carl Goldberg advertising point that because of a mechanism designed in the LW, it was capable of flying on such length lines. I think it was a rubber band mechanism that applied slight up or down elevator when line tension was lost. I never thought of the dizzying flights on 30' lines, because I thought this was normal. All half-A reed valve engine and RTF planes flew on 30' lines. I fly my .15 powered Ringmaster Junior on 50' and 60' lines, which of course is less dizzying. Being considerably heavier, it has very good wind penetration.

I guess your friend is able to do 52' lines, as flights are done during calm weather?

GallopingGhostler wrote:

Sig Skyray wrote:I'm assuming the Lil' Wizard runs on 52' lines because it's heavy and the new pilot has to spin much less? Greg

Greg, I thought it was a Carl Goldberg advertising point that because of a mechanism designed in the LW, it was capable of flying on such length lines. I think it was a rubber band mechanism that applied slight up or down elevator when line tension was lost. I never thought of the dizzying flights on 30' lines, because I thought this was normal. All half-A reed valve engine and RTF planes flew on 30' lines. I fly my .15 powered Ringmaster Junior on 50' and 60' lines, which of course is less dizzying. Being considerably heavier, it has very good wind penetration.

I guess your friend is able to do 52' lines, as flights are done during calm weather?

The one thing I can say for him is he will wait to fly on the 50 footers and go to shorter lines if it's windy.  He can still manage to have it roll in on him when the engine quits, but the Skyray usually just bounces in the grass.

Kim wrote:The one thing I can say for him is the will wait to fly on the 50 footers and go to shorter lines if it's windy. He can still manage to have it roll in on him when the engine quits, but the Skyray usually just bounces in the grass.

Skyray is lightweight and as usual, balsa flies better than the old heavier RTF's. Back in the early '70s due to this fact, I flew a Sterling Beginner's Eindecker with Babe Bee engine until I wore out the aluminum elevator horn. Flying over grass, I crashed that bugger many times and it came back asking for more. That Skyray ought to be a blast to fly and I imagine your son will enjoy it even more.

Another thing to keep in mind with all these great little planes is that, before you start gluing stuff together, you can measure the thicknesses, buy some stock balsa sheet, use the kit parts to trace their shapes onto the sheet, and mass-produce a few of these suckers!

Bellcrank/horn packs are common, and can even be made from ply in a pinch.

Kim wrote:Another thing to keep in mind with all these great little planes is that, before you start gluing stuff together, you can measure the thicknesses, buy some stock balsa sheet, use the kit parts to trace their shapes onto the sheet, and mass-produce a few of these suckers! Bellcrank/horn packs are common, and can even be made from ply in a pinch.

Such is true, and believe it or not, some kind individual out there traced out and provided plans for the Sterling Beginner's Eindecker:

RCGroups: Sterling S-37 Beginner's Eindecker
No longer need I dream about it. I can now remake that 42 years later!

GallopingGhostler wrote:

No longer need I dream about it. I can now remake that 42 years later!

Oh Yeah...now THAT'S The Stuff !!!


"BACK TO THE FUTURE !!!!"

I have had both RH and LH props on my twin engined P-38.  Not sure if it helped but it sure looked cool.

RCGroups: Sterling S-37 Beginner's Eindecker  that's a pretty cool looking little plane an easy build after I looed at the Wrong one first with all the small sticks and build up at 25" What the heck just save both maybe one day ? Thanks,  Eric

Eric, one could if they want take the Sterling Beginner for wings and tail feathers, and use the other to model a full fuselage, then have the best of both.

For these Sterling Beginner Series and other CL profile fuselage aircraft such as Midwest and Scientific, Bernie has the right engine mount to complete them:

http://coxengines.ca/cox-.049-engine-firewall-mount-control-line.html



The nice thing about this engine mount is it appears to have the correct mount holes for the Cox Sure Start type horseshoe back holes as well as the Cox .049 reed valve tank engine back holes, and mount for the landing gear wire.

The bottom holes appear slightly off center drilled for the reedie; one just files them a little to match the horseshoe back.