David Davis

If you put after-run oil into your engine after every flying session, it'll do it the world of good. It lubricates the bearings which are vulnerable to corrosion from the nitro in the fuel. There is especially-made after-run oil but if you don't have any, then "3 in 1" or any light oil will do.   You don't need to put oil into the engine after every flight. Edited By David Davis Telemaster Sales UK on 05/04/2010 07:02:19

Even the Telemaster 40 builder's kit is £90!

Quite calm yesterday afternoon at Forton Aerodrome near Shrewsbury. Demonstrated two Telemasters to a customer who'd bought a kit. Gave him a go with the big one, buddy-boxed up.   Flew my vintage Super Scorpian, couldn't get over how slow it was.   During the freeze I flew the Telemaster 40 off skis. Great fun, very peaceful surrounded by all that flat snow.

Thank you BEB   Just a note to say that I'm currently flying the "works"  Senior Telemaster ARTF on an old OS61 four-stroke, as seen in my avatar.  This is a model of 8 feet in the wingspan, (2.4 metres) and the old OS  powers it adequately though you do have to allow it to build up speed on take-off.   However, a Senior Telemaster costs £239 while an Irvine Tutor costs £75.   I won't be giving up the day-job!    

Hi Alan   Congratulations on getting your engine to run so well. Satisfying isn't it!   I agree with BEB that you could choose any of the 40-46 ARTF trainers such as the new Irvine Tutor II or the Sedona GP which is a bit bigger and easier to see, it also appears to have a very substantial sprung nose-wheel. Another larger model is the Thunder Tiger 60 trainer, which your engine should fly. We tend to over-power our trainers in my view though that extra power means that you can throw them around a bit once you've learned how to fly.   If you wanted to build a trainer there are plenty to choose from.  My article, "Trainers You Can Build," gives a comprehensive list and still features on the "Home" section of this website if you scroll down a bit.   The WOT4 is an excellent model but lacks the self-righting characteristics of a purpose-built trainer so you'd need an instructor on a buddy lead at all times. It's also too quick and small for a beginner.   Personally I'd go for a proper trainer   

Welcome to the forum Ed!   I'm sure a man of your talents will be a great asset.   Just for your information, we use miles to measure road distances in the UK but we've gradually shifted to the degrees Centigrade or Celsius over the last forty years when measuring temperature. On the Continent they use the metric system exclusively.   Having said that our children have been taught exclusively in metric measurements for the last fifteen years or more. Australia and New Zealand went metric in November '79, the very day I first set foot on Australian soil!   Yes, a temperature of 75 C would certainly wrinkle a few coverings   Happy Landings    

I've never flown a Fokker DVIII but I have one part-complete in the loft. I can't see why one wouldn't fly like any other high-winged monoplane.    The Fokker DrI or the DVII  are worth considering as neither had much in the way of bracing wires. You'd probably need to use either coupled rudder or or your rudder stick on the transmitter to combat adverse aileron yaw which has been a feature of every biplane I've ever flown, but that's good fun once you've mastered it.   I've always admired the Maule myself but the 12 foot (3.6 metre) wingspan Giant Telemaster first flew on a Zenoah 26    If you wanted to make a statement like...

The irony is that when you have some experience the hobby doesn't have to be that expensive.   I flew my Flair Hooligan yesterday, (kit cost me £38,) powered by a second hand Irvine 46 I bought from some lad who was off to university and steered by a twenty-two year old Sanwa Conquest radio.   I never throw anything away unless it's worn out.   Others just have to have the latest thing. That's where the expense comes in. 

I think that Ed's advice is generally pretty good and may be applied to more conventional i/c trainers as well.   Regarding wind, I refuse to take up a beginner if I feel it's too windy for his model. He's not going to learn much if the wind is constantly blowing the model off course and he doesn't know how to correct it.   Regarding orientation, I always ask the beginner to "Prop up the lower wing!" In other words as the model approaches us and it's turning to its left, push the stick to the right, towards the model's lower wing. That should straighten things up. I'm in the process of teaching a boat enthusiast how to fly. He has no problems with orientation.   As for over-control, that's the beginner's greatest error and it comes with practice.    

Welcome to the forum Roberto!

Hi JN   Precisely what problems do you have on cross-wind take-offs?   Are they related to a lack of power from the OS 40 LA?   In my opinion your engine should be more than powerful enough for a Kite, especially if you're a beginner.   I fly from a noise sensitive site. All our i/c engines have to pass the 82dBA test at 7 metres. We've found that engines which produce much more than 10,000 rpm flat out will fail the test.

Hi there Jack and Welcome to the Hobby!   I'm on the committee of the Shropshire Model Flying Club. We fly off Forton Aerodrome near Montford Bridge about five miles to the north-west of Shrewsbury. Go to www.smfc/biz to visit the club's website.   I plan to fly tomorrow and if it's not too windy, I'll give you a go with my Senior Telemaster on a buddy-box. Send me a PM and I'll give you my phone number.   Best foamy for a beginner? E-Flite Apprentice in my opinion.   Happy Landings   David Davis    

I like the substantial-looking nose leg on the undercarriage of the Sedona GP pictured above.

HI Phil   Japanese four-strokes and their clones tend to use less oil in the mix than was commonly used by two-strokes.   Historically two-strokes ran on 20-25% castor oil in the fuel. Most people now use synthetic oils with about 18% oil content. Four-strokes seem to run on 15% synthetic oil content.   A chap in my club runs all of his engines on the same fuel without any trouble. Don't know what his mix is though.   Great this working from home isn't it!

Well-made points Jonathan but in my view those aeromodellers whose engines are constantly going deadstick have not set them up correctly in the first place.   Perhaps they don't know how to tune an engine.   Then there are the Inveterate Needle Twidlers who wont leave the settings alone and wander why the engine keeps cutting and then there are the Out and Out Engine Butchers who will continue to crank engines long past the time when it should be obvious that they are not going to start   Electric motors are more reliable and will probably save a lot of flying fields but they are quite soul-less.

I'm pretty sure a good second-hand 40 two-stroke would fly it.

You won't go wrong with either an OS or a Saito.   Personally I prefer the sound of a four-stroke. They might take longer to run-in, and they are a little more complex but provided you use the recommended fuel and check the valve clearences once or twice a year depending upon use, you should have no problems. I'm sure someone at your club could advise. Saito only make four-stroke engines and have a reputation for quality. I've never owned one so can't speak from experience.   OS also make excellent four-strokes, I've five of them as well as a couple of their two-strokes all of which are fine.   I've also got three Thunder Tigre four-strokes, two 91s and a 54, which I'm also very pleased with. I expect the 54 would fly the Senior but they make a 75 now which should also be worth considering.    The Senior will make an excellent slow-flying trainer, but I'd advise against using it in a strong wind until you are used to it.

I thought that the "organisation" in regard to model flying clubs was the BMFA. I don't think it cost our club anything for me to get my CRB clearence. I will check with the treasurer.

Nice build Jonathan. Please let us know what it flies like.

WOT 4, OS SF61. Nuff said.

I know what you mean Andy. I was a demon on the rugby pich when I was their age and I certainly can't fly as well as them. Maybe they'll appreciate the delights of gentle flight once they've matured and mellowed a bit!   Your remarks about the CRB checks have also touched a raw nerve. I'm the Child Protection Officer of my local club and after a delay of several weeks my CRB clearence came throgh dated 16th February.   I'm a qualified careers adviser and on 22nd February I started a new job which involves helping university graduates to find work, but I am not allowed to interview clients unsupervised until a second CRB clearence comes through. This will take several weeks, a process not helped by my employer's HR department's failure to send me the CRB forms until I had been in post for over three weeks!   Happy Landings   David

I show-cased the Telemasters at an informal event run by  a local model club last year. At the event were a number of very accomplished (younger) fliers who proceeded to demonstrate their flying skills by hovering or prop-hanging their models just above the ground for extended periods, (smoke optional.) Some were so skillful that they could even touch the ground with their rudders without damage.   After I'd seen a dozen or more Capexedkois perform this manoevre over a four-hour period, I became rather bored and asked myself, "What is it about this hobby that interests me?"   The answer I came up with was, "Seeing my models fly." I suppose it must all date back to the first free flight models I built when I was a youth when getting a model to fly under power without crashing was a major achievement. It's not that I'm against aerobatic models, I shall be flying my Astro Hog and Hooligan later today and will be looping and rolling them with the best of them and I shall only be leaving the Acrowot behind because there is insufficient space for it in the car, but I'm equally happy just guiding a vintage or scale model around the sky in climbing circuits as I am performing a, for me, perfect Cuban Eight with the Hooligan. Others, I will concede, would find this type of flying boring.   At last year's event a pair of young experts had crammed four or five Capexedkois into an old Citroen. The models were all different sizes and powered by everything from an electric motor to a 62 Zenoah. They were all flown with great skill and spent long periods prop hanging just above the ground. These pilots then brought out a Junior 60, a three channel vintage model, powered by a small OS Bluey. They proceded to try to prop-hang that and though they made a better fist of it than I would have done, they didn't really succeed.   I felt that the episode illustrated the difference between model flying and radio control and I felt rather sad for these young experts whose enjoyment of the hobby seemed to be centred around making the model defy the laws of gravity.   The hobby is big enough to cater for all sorts but if there had been a society for the prevention of cruelty to vintage models, I would have reported these lads like a shot!

Jonathan   1. Not all vintage models dutch roll in the climb. You are not trying to make it climb too steeply are you, thereby getting the model to approach its stalling speed?     Phil   1. You are quite right when you say that you can take your A Certificate on any model, i.e: you don't have to take it with a trainer.   2. You have to use a model with which you are comfortable and this can be anything from a docile vintage model to ..well anything. I have flown the following trainers and these in my view are amongst the best: Tutor 40, Alpha 40, as recommended by James and Jonathan, and the Thunder Tiger Trainer. I've limited experience of the Boomerang but it has a semi-symmetrical wing section like the Tutor 40 so should have similar flying characteristics, i.e: it will not balloon so much into when turning into wind like a model with a flat bottomed wing section and it should be fairly stable in a Force 3 or 4.   3. If you are at the stage where you can put a model where you want to put it in the sky, then a WOT 4 would be a good option as recommended by Ken. I've never owned one of these but have flown several so I can be quite objective. They are exquisite fliers but, with that flat wing, lack some of the in-built stability of the models listed in 2.   4. If you feel that you need something more docile than any of the models listed above, the Sig Kadet Senior would be a good option.   5. FWIW, I took my A certificate on a Telemaster.      

Saw a quarter scale Piper Cub belonging to one of my club colleagues touch down a few weeks ago just before the LiPos exploded. He managed to get the smoking LiPos out of the model before too much damage was done. If this had occured 30 seconds beforehand, the model would have caught fire in mid-air.

Phil, may I re-phrase your question?   What is the best trainer for me?   I agree that the Tutor 40 is excellent and that the Boomerang should fly similarly due to its semi-symmetyrical wing section. This will allow the beginner to fly inverted circuits in a wind.... But wait a minute, if you can fly inverted circuits in a wind are you really a learner?   In my experience young people learn how to fly very quickly and either of the above trainers will be excellent for them. I believe that the Tutor 40 is being re-released with a longer fuselage which should make it even smoother to fly. However, older learners I have taught, have slower reactions and seem to lack the confidence of youth. They find the relative instability of a four-channel model difficult to manage and are much happier flying a "boring" three channel vintage model of at least five feet, (1.5 metres) in the wingspan, whether on a buddy box or not. Yes, you have to restrict your flying to fairly calm conditions but with a few flights under the belt the nervous beginner soon makes the transition to ailerons without too much difficulty.   The Junior 60 a 5 foot vintage design is avaiable from Flair as an ARTF .