Leaderboard

Just a short clip of the maiden take off. Flew lovely at the hands of clubmate Chris S who is a far better pilot than I. A few clicks of trim here and there but no dramatics and safely down with a peachy landing. My camera guy couldn’t make it and I was too excited to film the landing.

So, final stages now....all the painting is finished....yippee.......need to add some satin Humbrol varnish.......but big question...weathering, i tried some tests the other day and wasn't happy with the result.....the full size is a fully restored example.....no bullet holes here...but....it has a patina look.....probably not the correct word but the paint doesn't look new.....i need to do more testing....i think once the surface is sealed with the satin it may take a light wash..... Rudder needs gluing, retracts testing and finishing....motor tests and the all important CofG.....with my new Vanessa rig.

Light winds yesterday gave me the chance to test fly my latest build. the Roamin' Rhombus. I downloaded the plan from Outerzone. https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=7996 This is a Ken Willard design which dates back to the early 1980's and was mainly built using Aerolite foamboard, which had a plastic covered foam core. As I had some sheets of 5mm foamboard from Hobbycraft I used that instead. The original was for i/c, but as you can see I've gone electric instead. Slightly to my surprise the first flight proved to be relatively drama free. I moved the C of G slightly forward of the recommended position for the second flight. which made it more comfortable to fly, and I think I'll add a touch of down and right thrust before I fly it again, but overall it handles quite well. Orientation could prove to be challenging if you fly it too far away though...

If you blow at a dog, they hate it. But put them in a car and...............

Had the maiden flight this week of my Tiger 40 low wing aerobatic plane with OS 55ax . The flight took place at 9pm at the local flying club and all went well. Hope everyone is enjoying their flying especially in this weather.

There are lots of variables but ballpark: Tissue & dope 2grams/sq ft Solarfilm 6 grams/sq ft so for say, 3 square feet in a fun fighter weighing about a kilo, the difference will be a rounding error

Great weather again 10th consecutive day flying my Seagull Chipmunk and others. Building come to a standstill

Being having a lot of fun with my new been bird the past few days🌞🌻🙂

You'll love it and ultimately, you might prefer it over power flying, many of us do! 🙂 Remember with a glider, down elevator makes the model go down. Up elevator makes the model go down 😁 Have fun! Phil

Eric , I see what you are saying there . Ive always been a "they " , not like the the modern "they or it " more in the sense that if you talk to yourself and answer back with different voices you are just a few sentences away from getting a free, long armed jacket , and a room without much of a view . I totally agree with all of Graham and Peters comments . Its very easy to over power our scale models , or equally bully them around in a way that break up a full sized aircraft or black out the pilot . It is all about maintaining the illusion . A good example at the other end is flying heavies like the Lancaster or B17 . Even a small one can look very realistic if flown in calm conditions , provided it has very light wing loading and can hang in there at something approaching scale speeds . Obviously we can thicken wing sections and perhaps pack in a little more wing area to help us out .

Snuck out for anhour - hopefully the puppy won't totally destroy the house. Not many here yet.... new blood neimg buddy boxed. Umsuvvessfully as it just landed im a tree!

Good news Geoff. Discretion is always the better part of valour.....

Evening all! Montréal this weekend, and a bit of a false-start so far. But first; Don't forget your predictions! And the 'false-start'? Well the first practice session was abandoned very early after just 12 drivers had set one flying-lap time each. It was abandoned due to a CCTV failure. P2 starts at 21:30 UK-time, and will be extended by 30 minutes to a total of 90 minutes to make up for the effective loss of P1. P3 will be at 17:30 tomorrow, with qualifying at 21:00. Sunday's race is at 19:00, again all times are UK-time. Good luck everyone!

We first saw the Soarcerer at a Northern Area slope comp held at Tinkers Monument, where the Bradford club members had all built theirs with foam cores with partial sheeting and cap strips, so they looked 'built up'. They were all reduced dihedral aileron builds, maybe 8 or 10 of them, and this was before we'd even seen a rudder/elevator Soarcerer 'as Dave intended'. In varying conditions these models were astonishingly capable, light and aerobatic, and did well in the pylon race round too. Obviously over the next few weeks, Sheffield SSA members were busy building their own Soarcerers... all flew brilliantly well - this was long before the official 'aileron version' appeared. Dave's finest hour ! (and to think it was designed as a single-channel glider...) (I have a 24" half-scale one that IS single channel!) Cheers Phil

As a side note, the covering (olive green) was obtained from Rapid RC and I got a sample vinyl silk colour pot matched at B&Q. The match was quite good but the paint remained 'sticky' so I stopped using it. I had a bit of Tamiya drab olive green which I did the cowling in and then sprayed with gloss varnish to match the remainder of the aircraft, apart the colour match wasn't that good.! The decals were produced on the PC and laser printed on vinyl self adhesive paper.

Well after 15 months the Butcher Bird is ready for her maiden. Taking to the patch tomorrow for a final check over from a club-mate and if all is well….

My first proper power trainer back in the 80s was a 60" four channel Hi-Boy with OS 40. Certainly no lightweight but it flew well in most conditions and given its far from low wing loading, had to be landed properly. No dragging it in under power as you can get away with, with some featherlight foamies now. Not a difficult or bad model as some label it, but a model that was intolerant of mis-handling. To be fair, I had already flown gliders both on the flat and slope for a number of years , so wasn't a total novice. Still was a new skillset to master though at the time. If you have a similar type of model - hang on to it! Although the cost of electric power trains have become considerably more expensive compared to several years ago - and like them or loath them, Hobbyking's demise as a source of cheap batteries and kit, I don't believe the cost of electrifying a larger type of sport model is so out of the question, providing one shops around and sticks to models designed originally for say .40 to .46 two strokes or thereabouts. Properly installed and set up, IC engines shouldn't need fiddling with and although not totally free of 'mess', modern lower oil content fuels using synthetics only are vastly superior to the 'orrible sticky mess that we endured with castor based stuff.

The big thing for me is about completing the illusion. we put a lot of emphasis on the finish of the model, and rightly so. Approval of our peers, and our own satisfaction are important to us. But we can so easily shatter that illusion if we fly the model in a way that is only possible with a model. Even my little 42" spitfire looked really good if I flew big, sweeping lines and used the height/ speed exchange with some thought. The difference for us is that we can easily open the taps and ruin this illusion...

How hard did it hit the deck? With the ground baked hard at the moment any frontal impact will seriously shock load the front bearing. it should really be replaced and the crankshaft checked for straightness. On the Stuka front, i think the 180 would be fine. I mean, its a stuka. Just enough power to haul its fat self up to enough altitude to then fall down hill and drop a bomb before going home (or not). It will not be especially sprightly with a 180 but it should do all the things a Stuka should do.

Two things. First, you could not apply full power to the Spitfire for take off. The torque effect meant that the aircraft would start hopping sideways so that limited the power you could use. Full power could only really be applied, and then with care, once airborne and at a sufficient speed since at low speed application of 1,000 HP would overcome the aileron authority. Second, I was speaking to a full size aerobatic pilot who flew from the airfield we use. He had an Edge with 350 HP. When I worked out the power loading he had just on 350 BHP/ton. My F3A aircraft had 800 BHP/ton. As soon as he went into the vertical, his airspeed started to drop off whereas my model would accelerate vertically. Our models are almost always hugely more powerful than the full size so your comments about trading height for speed are very pertinent.

Richard have you become a they? I have been flying my Brian Taylor 65" span P40 this week, careful balsa selection and skimpy paintwork brings it out at 6lb 12 oz 5s battery is 23 oz, to fly it at scale speed 1/4 to 1/2 throttle is the norm. It has air retracts, not scale but straight back, very little wheel showing when up. Not sure what the motor is it has a label on stating 55 ce 700kv, I had it given. The plane would fly on a 4s I feel as it is overpowered as is, I will try it on a 4s next time out but will have to move the battery forward.

You Tube's algorithm picked up on my having viewed the video in the OP and came up with this one this morning. Worth a watch.

All finished other than the maiden and the final fit of the cowl. Just waiting for a calm day. It balanced at 85mm with a 4S 3300mah Lipo, there is room for 4S 5000mah and 5S 3500mah if needed. Currently I've got 2kg of static thrust with a 12x6e, so that should cruise around quite nicely. Pictures at the field to follow. Ranges set at - elevator 22mm up and down, Rudder 25mm L&R, Aileron 9mm up, 7mm down. The weight came in at 3.1Kg AUW (quoted on the box lid was 2kg but not sure that included the engine and wouldn't of included the fuel) so 400g over I reckon.