All Activity

Thx

Toto, you are running true to normality. You are learning and relaxing, and just getting a warning about relaxing. Concentrate, advice given, and listened to, but I predict you will destroy an airframe within a few hours of passing the A test. The crash starts, with the thought “how difficult can it be to ( pick your manoeuvre ), and it goes down hill, from there. We all do it, look at accident rates against progress in any skill. Dunna worry

That's exactly what I do as well but I'm just a humble Club Examiner!

As long as there is enough meat left to prevent failure. Our mounts are over engineered. The big problem is the old holes are to close to the new holes, and getting your drill to run true.

One thing I would suggest is to ask your examiner to demonstrate the A test to you. I am an area chief examiner and find this can be really helpful for both A and B candidates. It is one thing looking at videos and reading texts and trying to understand these, but if I fly what is required in front of them, they can see what is expected and there is no confusion.

The thing that really impressed the air ministry was the technical quality of Fokkers, particularly the Triplane. The adoption of a box spar with no external rigging along with a steel tube fuselage for a mass produced plane was so different to the UK methods. As stated it was Fokkers inability to maintain construction standards that created the problem. I suspect the "aces" who were influential and respected had their personal planes "decorated" to a high standard within the fact that everything was brush painted except the German lozenge fabric which was printed. The UK air ministry actually commissioned a detailed technical report on a captured Triplane detailing exactly how things were made. It appears it did not make much impression on the UK air craft manufacturing industry until speeds and the power it required to achieve it forced such structures to be adopted. It is perhaps worth remembering that Fokker did build the monoplane DVIII but was forced by the opinion of the influential ace pilots to mount it on struts in a "parasol" configuration for good downward visibility. Fokker also built prototype low and mid wing versions of the DVIII, a configuration preferred by designer Reinhold Platz, but were rejected. The V25 prototype with no bracing wires anywhere. A truly modern concept with the wing all ply covered but performance was limited by the rotary engine.

Hi can I redrill an engine mount that has been previously used for something else

Hi Andy how do you do that then

Couples hrs this morning old faithful flown today first flights since autumn

Basil I agree entirely. Repairing a fabricated structure tends to be a slow process. I too do not use super glues except in exceptional circumstances. On my favoured "hollow" foam airframes fabricated from parts cut from thin 3mm foam I use a glue that whilst it does have some degree of instant 'tack" it does not set "structurally" hard for 24 hours. Its not so much the time to get things in place but ensuring that they stay like that for long enough.

The way to work out the offset of the engine mount is to measure the distance from the mounting surface to the back of the spinner. Using simple trig you can work out what 2 degrees amounts to in terms of offset. 20mm sounds like too much to me.

I did my Futaba Challenger some time back. Modules are available for easy-ish conversion. The possible choice is to decide which module to use as this will probably determine which receiver system has to be used. In my case this was/is FrSky D8 so will only work with this receiver protocol. On my conversion I fitted a plug to the module input wires which plugs into the original output socket. So I can just unplug the 2.4 module and re-plug the 35 meg' back in. The only "hard" bit was how to fit the aerial. Must admit though - I have actually never flown with it yet .

A project I've been getting around to doing has made it to the bench. My first radio was a Futaba Gold unit, so of course have fond memories of. Would love to have one again for old times sake. Sometime in the near future, i'm going to build a vintage style model, so this would be perfect for that. Picked one up recently, and decided to set about a 2.4g conversion. Not the first one i've done i have had a JR9XII which went from 36MHz to a 2.4g plugin module to Frsky hack module. This one i want to do a little more "factory" as if it was always this way. This will be a permanent one-way conversion, in other words, there is no intention of ever being able to undo this conversion, so if there is any severe mods required, this won't be a problem. Unit as received: Is missing the battery and aerial but these are not a problem due to the work planned.

Hi Thanks for the reply but what I mean is would that put the engine mount 20mm off centre

I'm currently re-reading Christopher Kraft's autobiography about his career in aviation design and subsequent work with NASA's mission control. During the 1950's he'd been a major figure in the development of a 'Gust Alleviation Device ' for the US NACA - essentially a development of the autopilots that were available at the time based on mechanical gyros and analogue electronics. The project was very successful and auto stabilised transport aircraft that suffered from the often severe air turbulence that is found at the altitudes that most large aircraft were limited to back in the day. The clever bit was still allowing complete pilot authority over the system via the usual controls - not easy with 1940s and '50s electronics. A fascinating read.

I have the CG Extra 300 plan in front of me and yes there 2 degrees of right thrust , no down thrust. Also the main wings and tail plane are at 0 degrees to the datum line. Hope that helps.

I have not built one but I have one and yes the majority of it is ply, I bought one from a guy who had never finished it am just about to fit the engine but I have no plans for it maybe you could help me to get the motor shaft central to the cowl the engine mount is 2p0 mm off centre is that right.

Seeing the carnage in the back of my van, and the dents in the steel partition caused by models and equipment after an accident . Personally I wouldn't pack a plane like that (even foamies have potential to cause injury)

Agreed - I flew eight out of the First XI models that I took with me yesterday and was able to pick and choose which ones to fly. It would have been nine if the Jet Provost hadn't performed it's signature climb, half roll and tent peg manoeuvre, ending up fifteen feet in front of us, with the canopy pointing back towards us. It's done that six times previously, but mostly over the long grass, so no damage. I thought I'd cured an identified issue with asymmetric elevator movement, but that wasn't the case and this time I didn't get away with it. Category B damage, but it might be time to retire the Provost for a permanent patrol hanging from the ceiling.

The interesting thing about the switch that failed in the Boomerang was that it was not a conventional switch. It took the form of a mini jack plug and socket. You removed the plug from the socket just before flight and reconnected it after the flight. I bought two of them from a model shop in Waterloo of all places but I've thrown the second one away and replaced it with an expensive electronic switch. The problem with the electronic switch is that there's no charging lead or socket so you have to disconnect the battery from the switch to charge it up!

Ha........I had a switch fail in mid air yesterday thankfully with very little damage I didn't hit anything just a gentle roll in very long grass in the next field.- I suppose its always good to practice Dead Stick situations. I can only assume that the switch failed whilst turning it on.

Well done Bonzo for persevering! Having made several of these type of models, I would say it looked tail heavy, maybe too much movement and not enough expo. You did well coping with that wind as well! Please be careful with that prop, I have seen to many bad accidents with exposed pushers. Keep the videos coming...........they are great!.

I took the Boomerang to the flying field last week with my trainee Frans. I had replaced my beloved Enya 50 with an OS 46 AX which I had bought at a car boot sale for just a few Euros. It didn't have a silencer but I found one that fitted from among my souvenirs. I test flew the model and landed it. Then we bound the transmitters together and attempted to fly it but we had no response to control inputs. Back in my workshop we discovered that the switch had failed. It's a good job that it failed on the ground and not in mid air.

Apologies ..... I should no better ...... Post with a beer or three and you loose your inhibitions. ..... fair edit. In future .... it will be big bear bottom..... ..... if that's printable ....... said with tongue in cheek.. Cheers Toto.