acw

My Feedback: (1)

I'm using the CMJet tank. I believe it is 3L. I like the simplicity of no tank in the wing. My UF is really fast with a 130 and I fly at 3000' MSL. A 160 would probably be too much for the pipe and use too much gas.

wojtek

My Feedback: (73)

A 160 is perfect . I have one with a 160 and another on the way with a 180. The pipe is just fine .

With a 160, and the saddle tanks I would get 7 min flights. I suggest the saddle tanks instead of the Wing tank because that leaves you one less connection for your main fuel system to have to reconnect every time you set up. I ran a Wing tank, but that was for smoke..

CMC makes really nice Kevlar tanks. The CARF ones are good too, but for the saddle tanks, I would pad them where they make contact with any hard points.

Dave Wilshere

The CARF made single Evo tank is over 3ltr and lighter than the CM tank…

camss69

My Feedback: (46)

I have a 170 in mine, the 4liter Jet Tech tank, my timer is set to 6 minutes and fly a mix of aerobatics and full throttle speed and land with a half tank left. I think a 3liter size is better than the 4liter because I’m hauling an extra liter of weight.

You will be fine with the 160.

My 170 is in for service and I might just go ahead and update it to the 190.

737Driver

Hey all, and Dave Wilshire!!

Building another Evo, while installing the thrust tube, it's really jamming up in the tailcone before reaching the end of the tailcone. This thrust tube was put together by CARF factory, it's actually pretty nice...stainless inner and outer tubes....they even mounted the bell mouth for me, so it's literally push into empennage and screw into place. The problem though is the new tube is really not going all the way to the end of the tailcone, are some of you trimming the end of the tailcone a bit, like 10MM or so?

Thank you!!!

Dave Wilshere

Trimming is common, maybe not 10mm. But how does it sit at the front, if it sits flush with the former then it’s fine to trim 10mm off the tailcone.

Dave Wilshere

This was mine at the front.

737Driver

thank you Dave!!!!!! I actually widened the opening in the back where the tailcone meets/mounts the aft fuselage and sure enough, the belllmouth now sits right where it's supposed to be. With the bell mouth where it's supposed to be, yes in fact the end of the thrust tube does not meet the end of tailcone, so it looks like I'll trim back the end of the tailcone a smidge to have it meet the end of the thrust tube. Thank you Dave for the photo!!!!!

Tom

Dave Wilshere

I always open the hole in the back of the fuselage and face of the tailcone as large as I can, it’s needed to get the pipe to sit correctly, but also for cooling

Dave

BDK74

My Feedback: (5)

Not sure if it’s in here or not but could someone provide the dimensions of the pipe? Just ordered a UF and may go with custom pipe.

thanks

scoeroo

My Feedback: (9)

Nothing wrong with the pipe that is supplied .....
A fraction of weight is possible , but to worry about an ounce or two of weight in my eyes ......not worth it
Have std pipes in both classic & ultra with no issues

Dave Wilshere

The later pipes are much lighter than the early one.

stormseq

About to finish my order with Carf.
Tank question..

Engine planned to use K160 / 480ml/L consumption.

Stock Tank 3.5L Vs CMjets 4L vs JetTech 4.18L

Are the Kevlar tanks heavier than the factory tanks?
Just thinking that getting a single 4L tank would give me extra minute of time to taxi in and out and probably
no need for any extra saddle or wing tanks.

Or a 3.5L will be enough? I have not used a bigger engine before hence lacking the consumption knowledge/experience.

acw

My Feedback: (1)

The weight difference between kevlar and stock is negligible compared to weight of fuel. The simplicity of a single tank will give you a more reliable setup.
This said, you won't land with zero fuel left so a 3.5L tank is more like 3L useable. It appears to be a bit small for a 160. I have CMJets tank in mine.

camss69

My Feedback: (46)

If I was to do it again I would go with probably the stock tank. Or an aftermarket tank that size. I have a 170 and fly 6-7 min with the Jettech tank and land with a half tank. So I’m just hauling around the extra weight of a half tank of fuel.

Dave Wilshere

Stock tank is light, with a JetCat P-130Rx (actually over 150N) I fly a mixed flight of fast and slow, timer set to 7.45

737Driver

Yeah, don't waste your money on a custom thrust tube, the CARF tube is really nice!!! Bonus....it comes already assemble and ready to install, bell mouth installed on tube. My pipe is both inner and outer walls of stainless steel, no aluminum outer as far as I can tell

camss69

My Feedback: (46)

Totally agree..

stormseq

Thanks for the info.
Yeah, makes total sense, ill be happy if i can get 5-6mins of mixed throttle flying and few or many full speed passes.

Correction* K160 on the website mentions 480g/L consumption = 600ml/L roughly. Also our weather conditions are hotter
where i am based. So during summers/ or even winter afternoons the temperatures are hot where there is some loss of thrust,
hence i am choosing the 160N engine.

stormseq

Thanks Dave,

This is exactly what i plan to do, i guess there isn't huge difference between your P130 (150N) and KT160.
I think i should be good with the stock tank then. ill be happy if i can get 6.5mins + 1min spare incase of a landing turnaround and
maybe 500ml landing fuel left in the tank.

Do you think this is achievable with the stock tank?

Dave Wilshere

Yes, I guess the KT is not quite as good on fuel as the P-130 which seems really efficient, but I would expect you to meet your figures. Even when I’m racing 160 powered UF’s I get 6.5 minutes

Skunkwrks

I don't know where Dave's getting 150 from the P130 .....huum....!!!!!

https://www.jetcat.de/en/productdeta...ngines/p130_rx

Dave Wilshere

Read an actual power test like in RCJI. 220Rxi produces over 230. P-160 Rxi-B is nearly 170N. Where as other brands struggle to meet their specified figure, JetCat exceed.

The story on the P-130 is JetCat said they designed it aiming for 130N…and missed.

Dave Wilshere

Looking at the actual test figures, JetCat P-130Rx 153,4N. Kingtech 130G4 122.6N….

Skunkwrks

Wow, you're a huge fanboy for JetCat........ hum, so when you state 150N from a 130N engine, and they(JetCat) don't post a higher number on the website, then your blowing smoke saying it

overproduces 150N . RCJI means nothing, only what the manufacturer specs are.


So if the output is incorrect, as you suggest, then the fuel consumption that's posted isn't accurate either, or is it any approximation !!!!!

Sounds like a good salesperson making all other products sound rubbish, correct?