KeithT
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Everything posted by KeithT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I am considering a challenge - to fit pseudo-scale retracts to the semi-scale Heinkel 177 I'm currently building... Trouble is, I'm not entirely sure how to do it. As one can from the piccie, tell the bomber had two sets of wheels independently and oppositely retracting into the wing. Now, I'm not going to try the fully opening and closing wheel-well covers, but I have a nagging feeling a retract system should be possible. I would welcome any suggestions as to a suitable retract set up cheers Keith PS The model will be approx. 60" span, estimating around 2-3lb and pulled by 2 x cheapie 125W brushless motors. While weight is certainly a factor, I have not bought the motors yet, so these could be upped if necessary. Having said that this is not supposed to be super aerobatic...
-
-
-
Well, I flew it tonight with the old thin GWS 7x3.5 and this was much, much better. Even in the slightly windy conditions it was loads easier to fly. The slow speed was also fine again and I don't have u/c on this so take off is a firm chuck I weighed it at 250g sans battery and 385g with; looking at generic LiPos the difference between a 1300mAh and 800mAh is only around 25g so I'm not sure there's enough of a difference for me to notice in flight. I think the width of the other prop (8x3.8) produced a load of side thrust. much happier now Keith
-
Well, as it was such a nice evening I had a go tonight with the repairs, mods and larger prop (8x3.8) and once I got the CoG right it did fly but was very tricky to control at slow speeds, and when applying throttle it seemed to slew sideways. Once flying at a fair speed it controlled well; it wasn't much faster than the smaller prop but definitely had more pull, as it climbs with ease. Having made lots of changes at once, I'm going to shift back to the 7x3.5 prop to see if the differences I'm experiencing are prop or airframe/controls derived. Must remember to change only one thing at a time... It's very tempting seeing that example to make a new Crash-E incorporating the wing fixing and add rudder control. Keith Crash-E: Tower Pro 2408-21T; 3S 11.1 LiPo; 1300mAh; Wasp 20A ESC; 7x3.5 @ 9A (99W), 8x3.8 @ 16A (160W)
-
Hiya, sounds good Reuben. I was flying it a lot over the past couple of weeks - really calm weather in the evenings, then it somehow crunched its nose in, and fired the battery through the front wall of the inner chamber... So I've rebuilt it with some modifications; a) The side 'cheeks' beside the motor have been replaced with a nose cowl with side and base vents b) The servos have been shifted out sideways in 'pods' to allow easier battery change (I was having to unscrew a servo to get the battery out, and this would have loosened the threads longer term) c) I've moved the receiver back under the rudder rod and shifted the rudder servo through 90° I've been flying this with a GWS 7x3.5 Slowfly prop so I doubt my speeds have ever got as high as yours or Andy's, but it still seemed to climb vertical when asked. However I'm going to experiment with an 8x3.8 and maybe 8x5 or 7x6 later - out of interest which prop have you currently fitted?
-
-
-
Bump! I (almost) finished my Crash-E back in January when this thread was a bit more current - BUT I'd like to thank Andy and Reuben for their great build thread and clarification of the build plans. I got out tonight for a beautifuly calm and sunny evening and tentatively launched my first built model - found I had forgotten to check CoG - leading to a barely controlled short nose dive which broke the prop ! Never mind; I fixed on a new prop (I'd expected that ) and corrected the CoG. Took it down a big field and with a bit of power, chucked it. It flies very well, and I cannot help but be most chuffed. My build was straight from the plan, wings held by bands - no hatch mod. The flight was like the others have described above, only I found after successive stops to check the battery voltage the wings held on with rubber bands lead to slight trim adjustments every flight but no probs seemed to work. Again many thanks Keith
-
Postioning SC52FS in planned build
KeithT replied to KeithT's topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
Thanks for the comments Jim - I'll be contacting Alan soon to sort membership etc, once New Year and the shock of returning to work has worn off . I was perusing the Mannock plans yesterday and they're not actually as scary as I intially thought, just far more detailed, and once you get your head round them it looks straightforward and more suited to the four stroke (it's designed for a 4 stroke), so I'm leaning towards attempting that one first . It has the benefit of being a DB design and therefore may well actually work. Oh decisions, decisions... -
Postioning SC52FS in planned build
KeithT replied to KeithT's topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
Yes, the fact it was a DB plan was what attracted me, but comparing the two I'll practice building the Josephine first - it looks far simpler. And yes, I'll be getting assistance, if a) I have time and b) it's not raining... That's what the Tutor 40's for... But I like building and playing with wood so I wnated to build something -
Postioning SC52FS in planned build
KeithT replied to KeithT's topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
Myron, I'm up in Alnwick and planning to join CADMAC (Cramlington) as it is easier to get to (down A1); the weather was so bad last year I never bothered. I'll probably head over to BVRMC at some point in the future I'm sure. I'll try to check your photos as it's an interesting problem. Bruce, it's a fair point but my intention is to build a model that may be flown and should be able to be flown, at some point in the future yet undetermined Eric, I've checked the possibility to shift the formers back but F2 is immovable due to the inelegant style of supporting the upper wing - it has a wire frame lashed to balsa sticks secured diagonally through the fuselage on F2 and F3. (Remember this is a simple build plan). Thus F1 could be moved back but this would compact fuel tank space dramatically. With that and the undercarriage extension I think I'll build as per the plan and get an engine to fit, or perhaps switch the SC46 from the Tutor 40 to it when the time comes. The fuselage and tail are sheet balsa on the plan, but maybe a slightly smaller engine up front, like the JEN.37 would allow modification to a built up fuselage and tail for balance and a lighter all-up weight? PS I have a second plan, Mannock that, on reflection, would probably be more appropriate for the SC52FS -
Postioning SC52FS in planned build
KeithT replied to KeithT's topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
Hi Eric, so many questions, and helpful comments - thanks for replying (Happy New Year ) Um... Northld is standard shorthand for Northumberland, I have no flying experience, but I do not wish to fly it at present, I wish to BUILD it! The biplane in question is in the title ( RC1527 Josefin ). Thanks for the info wrt shifting F1/F2 - that has confirmed that my initial feeling was correct i.e. that my solution would not so easily work. Moving F1 back will need for shifting F2 I think, to fit in the fuel tank. I'll need to peruse the plans for a while and consider how it may be achieved, or scrap it and return to a 0.40 2 stroke power as per the original. And a very good point about the undercarraige - I had not considered that one. -
Postioning SC52FS in planned build
KeithT posted a topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
Hi guys, First off, I'm a newbie to building from plans. I'm considering building this recently aquired plan for this 40" biplane, mostly for the fun and experience of building from a plan - this is touted as one of the simpler ones, and I liked the look. The suggested IC size is 0.40, but I would like to build it to incorporate my SC52FS, such that it could be used if I ever get around to flying. However, the plans sketch a vague outline of a .40 engine with propshaft poitioned on (presumably beech) bearers directly in front of the main F1. Laying the SC52FS rear needle over the plans and the problem becomes apparent - the rear needle assembly shoves the engine a good inch further forward. So: can I simply extend the fuselage 'cheeks' and bearers to support this, ensure thrust line is unchanged, perhaps alter the fuselage front section toallow for the longer 'nose' and try to ensure CofG is unchanged? Or is it altogether much more complicated..... ? Any thoughts appreciated Keith -
Win a brushless motor and ESC
KeithT replied to David Ashby - Moderator's topic in General Electric Flight Chat
It'd be rude not to try.... -
Straightening a tailplane
KeithT replied to KeithT's topic in Building from Traditional Kits and Plans
OK thanks for the ideas - I'll think about how to strap it up while its attached to the model, and I needed to invest in a heat gun anyway -
Any ideas welcome: I have a Tutor 40 - went together nicely, currently stored in the shed, and an object (let's call it a "spacehopper") ended up resting on one side of the tailplane for a few days until I discovered it. The half of the tail it were restin' upon is now less than entirely flat, and, though I am clearly not an expert (tutor 40 not flown yet), I suspect this is not A Good Thing. Is it possible to a) ignore it and hope it won't make any difference to flight or b) flatten it by cunningly sandwiching it between truely flat objects for a considerable period, or must I c) somehow remove the (epoxied) tail and build a new one ? cheers (from a very wet Northumberland) Keith
-
lol that is my fear John ! I started looking at cheapy quiet vacuums or I might DIY an air extractor based on a decent small fan / dustbuster and hose arrangment. That's a bit vague, I know, but if I can reduce the majority fine particles within the room the rest can be vacuumed with the regular hoover. Oi reckon she'd go for that, heh
-
Many thanks for all the replies , there's a range of ideas here. I'm having a look at the axminster scroll saws (haven't seen one at £30 yet ) as they seem to be quite versatile - I like the 90° turn potential (Pete, was that a fixed speed version?), but I need a trip to a big hardware place like B&Q to get a better judge of size of the things, so I'll check their offerings too. I'm quite surprised at the range and the lack of 'brand leadership' at the hobbyist / diy-er end of the market. Many places on the internet are offering Dremel, Draper, Fox, Jet, Proxxon, Ryobi, Scheppach, Sealey, Silverline, SIP, Woodstar...but it's hard to see any real difference between them by specs alone. Good point about the dust Eric, I'm converting an old nursery to the modelling room, but it's to be 'shared' with a laundry / craftwork / occasional guest room set-up (wife insists...) - I was assuming the amount of dust produced would be little more than vigorous hand sanding produces - is this wrong? So I may need to think again where to put it. Nice one guys, thanks for all the help.
