Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by EarlyBird

  1. I have just phoned Mortons for help but they will phone me back when they find someone who can help. I did suggest that when they find the right person they get them to join the forum and let us know what is going on and provide the help that is needed. I will let you know of any further developments. Steve
  2. The windowsill is parallel to the tailplane and the engine bearers are at an angle to that line. on some models there is zero down thrust and then I have found the thrust line to be parallel to the tailplane. Interesting that you seem to be saying that the down thrust is the angle between the wing and engine bearers. I will have to think about that. On some models there is zero down thrust and zero wing incidence, Phil Kraft Stik for example, but most of my builds are Peter Miller's designs that have zero down thrust but I never thought of comparing the thrust line with the wing angle, interesting, I will check. Steve
  3. As the tailplane is parallel to the engine bearers then there is no down thrust and 3 deg of wing incidence makes me think this model is a free flight design. If that is the case then they were designed to climb under power and the power would have been marginal requiring hand launch because there was not enough power for ground take off. Putting this all together, a lot of assumptions on my part, tells me your model is doing what it was designed to do. Are we talking about your Buccaneer? There are other topics on here discussing how vintage FF designs are flown when converted to RC. Leaving it as designed then only fly on calm days, climb under power using the rudder to control direction and when at height cut the power and gently circle back down to ground. Otherwise you can fly with more power and control which will require the design to be modified. At my club there are a number of these vintage models converted to RC that have down thrust added, Junior 60 for example, the other option is to reduce the wing incidence by packing up the trailing edge, or a combination of both. I was given a Super 60 that had a lot of down thrust added even though some was already built in and more bizarrely the LE had been packed up, although it flew I could not see any logic in these changes so I removed the added down thrust and the packing from the LE. In my opinion it flew even better and certainly was not any worse. Why did they do it? Maybe taking a design that had been modified to RC and returning it back to FF with the increased wing incidence then adding down thrust to compensate. Crazy? I have not measured the wing incidence and down thrust on the Super 60 but 2 deg down thrust and 1 deg of wing incidence would be fairly typical. Then there is CofG to play with, as it's 3 channel if the CofG is not far enough forward it will tend to wallow when coming out of a turn. Plenty for you to experiment with which will require time to get it flying the way you want it to. Lastly when I was at your stage of learning I could not have done this and it was something like a year after passing my A that I started to notice how small changes in down thrust, wing incidence and CofG affected the way the model flew which enabled me to sort the Super 60 out. It's all good fun and keep us posted as to how you get on. Steve
  4. Pitching down with increased throttle is a sign of too much down thrust. Steve
  5. Not really what I would call nice as I would swap my money for good health any day but we all have our crosses to bear and talking about it does not help because even face to face no one can feel the pain someone else is in and on here it is a waste of breath. In my world Rich it's only money and I can't take it with me, so I am told. The best way I can enjoy it is by standing on the flight line with one of Peter Miller's designs I have built and can fly for a few minutes at a time. Not much but it puts a smile on my face. It's been a grim couple of years but the signs are that I am over the worst as I don't have to take a chair to the flight line now and last week I managed to fly on two consecutive days, I was down to one flight a week. Never had a problem with DWP and my pension has always come through on time with increases every year. I assumed everyone was the same but obviously not. What am I staying safe from Rich, just so I know what to look out for. Steve
  6. I don't understand 'Putin' and how your future is assured ? Maybe I would rather not know. Leave it there Rich. Steve
  7. I had the same on my Wot4 foam-e. Removing the cowl showed a gap between the foam and rear of the motor mount. With the model on it's side I used Gorilla PU, warmed up it flows nicely into the gap. Once dried I test flew and added washers to adjust the down thrust. Steve
  8. Very depressing for you as there is nothing to look forward to. What do you mean 'ordinance falling on us, yet'? Steve
  9. Nope. Here is a clue from earlier in this topic. ? Really the decision just comes down to how much I want to save the planet. Steve
  10. Brand loyalty stops me looking at anything else. Steve
  11. Not for me as gas keeps my house warm and I would not like to be without it. Steve
  12. Just rang a bell from when I first switched to Frsky and telemetry. The model needs to be more than two feet off the ground, I assume the ground (especially wet grass) reduces the signal strength. When in range check my surfaces moved as expected at 100 ft even though RSSI was low. Never having had telemetry before and always flying without issue based on the range check I flew obviously without issue. I have been told that RSSI going critical is not a problem as the model will continue to respond up to twice the distance but telemetry will be lost. With this in mind and knowing that the receivers are good for up to 2 km I found that the low alarm would sound at some 400m I could not test the critical alarm as the glider was becoming a dot in the sky. Based on this experience I am thinking all this technology is getting in the way of the fun. Thinking about it now I can not remember the last time I looked at the RSSI, alarms have never sounded, and I have switched off the telemetry recording. I have gone back to the idea that if it's in sight then it's in range and happy at that. Steve
  13. When doing the range check was the model on the floor?
  14. I had not noticed anyone preaching but there are the odd very negative posts which I don't understand. Could be English humour. That's impressive, my car is now over £100 to fill up I only do local runs and have a drive and garage so for me EV will be ideal. It's the £73,000 purchase price that is making me reluctant to make the change now. On the other hand I do want to help save the planet, so still thinking. Steve
  15. EarlyBird

    Taranis X9D+

    My X9D+ SE 2019 the on/off is a push button not a slider. As suggested it can be switch it on if something in the case presses on the switch. Does this only happen when it's in the case or also when out of the case? Steve
  16. A pleasure Tom, I could join you with a build of my own, with a bit of encouragement in the form of progress updates of your build. ? maybe the Chilli Wind and electric though. ? Steve
  17. Here you go. chilli breeze wing rev1.pdfchilli breeze rib outlines rev1.pdf Steve
  18. Here now. chilli breeze wing rev0.pdf chilli breeze rib outlines.pdf Steve
  19. With the bottom sheeting glued the sanding can start. But when to stop? ? Steve
  20. I think this is the build by Robert Parker. Having read the above I can confirm it is 60" WS. Steve
  21. Another milestone reached. ? Found it's feet. A FG undercarriage from a trainer I destroyed while learning ? hence the yellow covering. The ESC is installed and motor rotation tested, the bottom sheeting is dry fitted so next glue it in place. Steve
  22. That's just an introductory video for series two. The first series is very interesting, but to judge one has to view them. That's a bit harsh. Steve
  23. That's a rash assumption. ?
  24. It will. The EQC has the same footprint as the C200 estate which will take an eight foot wing, just. The EQA is similarly based on the A class which did look too small for my bigger models. Steve
  • Create New...