DREAMER-RCU

I'm the modeler in Arizona that has the EDF version of the Reaction. It is 82% of the original size. It has the Hayoe 4.5" fan, Scorpion HK-4035-540 drawing 62 amps, Turnigy 100 A esc, and 12s 5000 40C batteries. With 2 sets of batteries, my installed fan cost is $1100.00. My support equipment; 2 Astro 109 chargers with Binkies cost $240.00. The servos and retract gear cost $600.00.

The big difference in converting the plane to electric was the required differeences in the body to accomidate the larger Diameter fan in relationship to a turbine. While the wing and tail surfaces stayed at 82%, the body length stayed the same, but, the body hieght and width became larger. Think of inclosing a circle determined by 3 points. Two of the pointe are the lower outside edges of the body and the third point is the lowest point on the wing cutout for the fan. The other prominate change was to the boat tail. I added a "stinger" (round tube) leading to and covering the fan's spinner. The large hatch lends its self very well to fitting in the battery packs.

At 14 pounds with about 10 pounds of thrust it flies very well as a jet trainer that it was designed to be. Measured speed is 120mph. Not a barn burner, but it goes where it is pointed, looking very good in the sky. Just like it's bigger brothers, when you turn on final with full flap, there is nothing sweeter, as it drags in. Greg Moore (Contrails Editor) likes to fly it every chance that he gets.

Could a full size Reaction be electrified. Yes, most definately. I have plans for my 82% version with futher body changes in order to use the Dynamax fan, which in some of its wilder configurations (XPS), puts out mid 20s for thrust. So there is no doubt that a full size could be built and flown. Again the body problem with the inclosed circle. But at the upper power levels of the Dynamax/XPS you are looking at 600 for the fan/motor, at least that much for the ESC, and 15s 6000 65c batteries. That cost is out of my reach.


Bob Reynolds
Tucson, AZ

knifeedgeyak

I just received my kit. It looks great. This is my first turbine and I want to build it right. Are there any tips for making sure the body comes out straight? I have struggled with the banana affect as Bruce put it in my other models. I look forward to this project and I am glad there is so much info out there about the kit.

TommyWatson

My Feedback: (1)

Just follow Bruce's instructions to the letter.

Regards

gutboy17

I agree. The included instructions are great. However, I used a laser straight edge to keep my Reaction straight.

rcguy!

My Feedback: (69)

Build it stock and you're guaranteed for success. YES even the wire struts! NEVER had an issue with mine. I do suggest Trim wheels and brakes from DreamworksRC though.

Can you guess how the R54 would go with the new Wren 100 rated at 22 pounds??!!!!

Dave Rigotti

ww2birds

My Feedback: (14)

We shall know on Saturday! I picked up a Wren 100 at the Wren open house, it arrived by UPS today, and will be flying in my R54 this weekend. Swapping it in place of the Supersport should be pretty simple :-)

I am thinking about the same top speed and better vertical .. I've radar-ed my R54 with the Supersport at 155 mph so we'll see.. she weighs 20# dry.

Dave McQueeney

rcguy!

My Feedback: (69)

I'd say a bit more top speed.

BUT the verticals would be awesome! PLEASE let us know! Pics and video if possible!

Dave "Reaction Man" Rigotti

BruceTharpe

My Feedback: (1)

Holy cow, Dave. Good luck with THAT. You're entering guinea pig territory with that much thrust...

ww2birds

My Feedback: (14)

Ha! Well I'll see if I can post some video, but honestly, I doubt you'd be able to judge much from the video .. a few mph in top speed or a better vertical is kind of hard to notice in a video. I think I'll notice it for sure while flying it though.

I have probably 200 flights on the R54, so I know it very very well, and we'll sneak up on full power carefully when in level flight.

The increased power will come at some cost in fuel consumpion of course, Ron Ballard did some measurements at his open house. The motor still has good economy, but more power = more fuel no matter what!

Just FWIW, according to the published fuel consumption (note this was done at a slightly lower atm pressure than std .. summarized here: [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10081250]http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10081250[/link]), the Wren 100 is 12 oz/min at full throttle (160000 rpm, same as the SS), the SuperSport is about 10oz/min at full throttle.

Interpolating from the posted numbers says that the 100 will produce the same thrust as the SuperSport at about 150000 rpm, burning about 10.6 oz/min.


Dave

afterburner

My Feedback: (18)

What's the idle thrust on that engine? You can probably keep it in level flight with half flaps at idle and cruise around for twenty minutes Looking forward to some video though. Mine was clocked at 139 in level flight with a p-60 but that was by our club president who is a cop so his gun was probably miscalibrated.

Marty

ww2birds

My Feedback: (14)

Good point. The older FADEC ECUs have a safety feature that sometimes causes the idle to come up to 60K-ish RPM at low throttle, and on a few occasions when I have landed with extra idle thrust it was "interesting" .. the plane would actually pretty much fly around at the higher idle. I do have the ability to crow the ailerons up, which really helps.

I don't see a measurement of idle thrust for the 100 but we'll see how it goes.

Dave

ww2birds

My Feedback: (14)

Holy cow! The Wren 100 is awesome on the R54 :-)

Sorry no videos (long story) .. but it does go noticeably faster, has much better vertical and it sounds really really cool.

The airframe had no trouble handling the power, we'll see if we can get a radar speed on it tomorrow.

The startup on the 100 is really fast .. I think the new ceramic igniter is the key to this .. as soon as the glow test is over, it's running. Very smooth, no issues with the residual thrust at all .. slows done to land about the same as with the SuperSport.

All smiles!

Dave McQueeney

Eddie P

My Feedback: (4)

Did you use the same timer setting on your flights? What was your fuel burn difference? I bet you used more- it would be impossible not to use the thrust when you have it... Though based on what you posted earlier it seems that if one was truly disciplined, a similar flight could be had for the same fuel burn with reserve power standing by. Not likely though... who would be so disciplined to not use the thrust when they had it

What is the total installed weight difference between the two engines?

Is the FADEC interface different with the 100 vs. SS?

afterburner

My Feedback: (18)

Sounds good Dave. Maybe you can get some video next time. Hope to see it in person maybe at FIF in NC next year.

Marty

ww2birds

My Feedback: (14)

Guys,

According to some measurements done at Ron Ballard's open house, the Wren 100 burns 12 oz/min at 22 lb thrust. The generic spec for the SuperSport is 18 lb at 10 oz/min. Yes, more thrust costs more fuel .. no question about that!

What I was saying was, given the way I typically fly, I don't spend a lot of time at full throttle .. a few passes, and in vertical maneuvers .. so the impact on the whole flight is not so big. I suspect that I fly with the 100 at about the same speeds as the SS 80% of the time, and according to Ron's numbers, the 100 does 18 lbs at about 10 oz/min, so for the same speed of the plane, the consumption is the same.

So, net net, power costs, but to use 70 oz of fuel in a 7 mins flt, the difference is not enough to make much of a dent in the reserve fuel.

I did not measure installed weight, I assume the motors are close to the same. The 100 comes with the new smaller FADEC ECU which is very nice, I am sure lighter but not by enough to notice. Same 2S 1800 maH LiPo running the ECU.

Thanks, Marty. I did not bring it to FiF this year, had two other planes in the trailer...

Dave

gooseF22

Idle thrust was the same (less than 1lb).. Motor weighs the same 2.2lb..

Eddie P

My Feedback: (4)

I've got 92 ounces of fuel in my Tam A-4 main tanks and I always land with at least 16-20 ounces above and beyond my UAT when I set the timer for 7 minutes - so I'm burning maybe a little more than 10 oz per minute at full as I'm not running full throttle except for 30 percent of the flight (I like to hot dog it a little). My run time is usually about 9.5 minutes after about 1 minute before takeoff on a taxi tank, and extra 30 seconds in the air in the circuit as I normally land a little past the timer, and at least 1 minute after landing for taxi back - but those numbers seem pretty reasonable still. I bet I could put the 100 in and keep the timer at 6.5 minutes and still have plenty of reserve fuel, or be slightly more disciplined with the timer and keep 7 minutes. I just know I'd have to punch the throttle a little here and there, lol.

Yes, I do miss my R54

I was talking to a guy the other day that I haven't seen for years. I only met him what I asked him to spot for me once with the R54. He was very disappointed I sold the R54. I used to buddy box guys at times to give turbine Demo flights - if you've flown a warbird you can fly a R54 but let me say the adrenaline rush was certainly there for warbird guys doing their first turbine training flight.

ww2birds

My Feedback: (14)

I've got to agree with that regarding "getting bitten by the jet bug".

I flew "heavy metal" warbirds for years and always said "no, I am not a jet guy!" .. till one of my buds let me fly his Kingcat. The comment was made at the time that my warbirds woluld mostly sit in the hangar in the future, which turns out to be true .. at least for the prop-driven ones. The F-18, F-15, F-9-F are another story :-)

I smile just thinking about a Wren100 powered Tam A4. I love A4s, and the only thing about Tam's is that it seems so small ... purely from a 50+ year-old eyeballs point of view!

Dave

Mike06659

Well guys I got my jet wings last Sat on a Reaction 54. It was great!!!!!! I flew another four flight yesterday and I love this thing. It is powered by an FTE-500 and moves it through the air nicly. I have a couple of questions for you guys:

*Do you use flaps on take off?
*How big of a job would it be to strip and recover a Reaction?
*I would like to install some trailing links, any recommendation as to which to use.

Eddie P

My Feedback: (4)

I can offer personal perspective on the first two questions:

1) Yes. 10 degrees for takeoff. Not necessary on pavement, but takeoff run is a little shorter with flaps as expected. I never flew my R54 off grass.
2) Big job! But worth it if you want a killer jet! It's also an opportunity to change up the model a little (add intakes, add a canopy if you like, or not) I took the covering off mine and glassed the fuselage and tail. I covered my wings with Ultrakote and then painted them to match the glassed airframe. Plan on some down time; if you are on the fence don't do it unless you have some un-flyable weather ahead b/c this R54 is too much fun to just leave sitting around if you run out of time to finish the job.

WW2, did you sell your SS? I'm really wondering about the idea of getting a Wren-100, though I love my SS!! It's always nice to do something new.

ww2birds

My Feedback: (14)

Hi Eddie,

I still have the SS ... sitting on the bench at the moment. The R54 with the W100 is like another airplane .. speed difference is greater than I expected and vertical is comparable to a Kingcat/Titan combo .. in fact it keeps up with the KC/Titan in level flight and it never could before. I cannot say enough good things about this little motor, and what a great match it is for the R54.

I have about 200 flts on the Reaction with the SS and it's really a whole new exprience now .. really really fun. My plane weighs 20# dry, has the Gary Mueller tank. You can take off, accelerate on a gentle climbout, and pull 2-3 vertical rolls before you have to pull over the top. Never could do that before! Once it burns a little fuel it will go up even further .. I am sure not technically "unlimited" but would peter out higher than you'd be able to see.

I think Ron has another batch of 100s coming soon :-) It looks exactly the same .. just tell people you got some "special fuel additive" if they notice the performance, say it's the same motor ... then offer to sell them some additive!

Dave

Eddie P

My Feedback: (4)

It's nice to hear such reports. I think your initial reports of the SS in the R54 convinced me of what I already knew, that I had to get the SS on my A-4. Really, the thrust was one thing but the weight and fuel burn are what impress me about these engines. Great to see that the -100 opens the door completely to a new experience on the R54 like the SS once did. Do you have a new home for the SS yet?

The SS pushes the A-4 around pretty hard as is. My dry weight w/UAT is 17.5 pounds, and I put on 92 ounces in addition for takeoff. It moves out nicely but on a super hot day it might be fun to open her up and see the looks with a -100 hidden in there. The best part about a -100 on the A-4 would be the insane vertical without the need for so much speed to pull it off. Nothing simulates a real tactical jet with scale momentum like a medium pass followed by a non decelerating, smooth 80 degree rolling chandelle to downwind. 200mph passes followed by vertical aren't all that impressive, I mean what else are we gonna do with all the speed? Wait... what am I saying - strike that. Speed and vertical are, by definition, fun and impressive in any form.

Mike06659

Thanks for the info Eddie. I might take on the covering job this winter the jet has such potential as for looks. Does anyone know what page the engine inlet templates are on?

Mike06659

Also, what is the CG from the leading edge you guys are going off of?

ww2birds

My Feedback: (14)

Thanks the info, Eddie ... I love A-4s and have ofter thought about getting one of Tam's A4s. Nice to know the SS or 100 would be a good motor. I am also working on a turbine conversion of Mark Fraenkel's old ducted fan RA-5C Vigilante, and I think the SS or maybe a 100 would work for that.

On the Tam A4, I have been worried that my old man eyes would not keep up with it!

Dave