Matt Jones

Depending on budget Audi RS, Merc AMG and BMW M division all have estates with anything from 4.2l V8 through 5l V10 to 6.2l V8, that should cover most options.

Mibo.

It's just wrong IMHO, there's no excuse for not using a proper section

Posted by Mark Kettle 1 on 12/02/2017 09:31:18: Maybe you could use a flat plate Flyer? Whats the sharp of ideas? The 1980's called, they want their flat plate wing sections back.............

It's fairly widely known and I think he might have reached an agreement of sorts with HK. There's lots on the net but covered here a bit. **LINK**

No. Next question?

Cyano kicker and a soft cloth work really well.

Phase 6 wasn't a two piece wing, wasn't 2.2m and the fuselage shape looks wrong. Sorry guys but I think you're wrong.

The hard work and complexity is in the fus, if you don't like the section it should be straight forward to change for something like E374 etc.

Ade, Phil and I have been thinking of a banana bomber for PSS for a while, any idea what the section is?

Agree Tony and it'll probably be fine but this is the second time in about a week that someone has recommended a design for PSS without actually trying it first, personally I think that's dangerous and something that shouldn't be done. People still think that PSS isn't viable in anything less than a hurricane which simply isn't true, my fear is we're in danger of encouraging people to give it a go with untried airframes and, if it doesn't work, will only perpetuate the myth that PSS doesn't work. Might be worth holding back on the recommendation until it's actually been proven 'eh?

Nice Tony, has it successfully flown PSS?

Great. Thanks then.

Why's that Chris, are the skips outside hangar 1?

It's a long way but if it means I can abuse that Mr Meade I'm in.

That is a great shot Phil

So it's being suggested for PSS but it hasn't actually been tried? Great.

I've not seen the mag yet so cut me some slack if I'm wrong but are they seriously suggesting a warbird with a fully symmetrical wing section is suitable for PSS? Who came up with that assertion and are they qualified to make it? My fear is that people will have a go, it won't work and we'll be back in the dark ages with people thinking that PSS isn't viable in anything less that 50mph. This will do more harm than good IMO.

Posted by Tim Lewton on 27/12/2016 21:06:20: idont want to fund isis . I don't think this website needs ill informed comments like that. FYI I've just renewed using Worldpay without issue.

Looking at the original image I suggest it is the same as what Jim posted, simply a bit faded and crucially, reversed, the give away is the union jack being backwards too. I reckon the port side is per Jim's post and all they've done is flip the image to create one for the starboard side but they've been lazy.

MattyB, you say this is fantasy stuff, assume you work for Amazon and can therefore comment with authority?

Those that can, build from wood. Those that can't, pay someone to cut foam for them. Foam is for pizza bases and washing machine packaging only.

Looking at that cockpit shot makes me mourn the increasing loss of traditional building skills.

There's also the added benefit that a Tx that unattractive will make you look at your model more attentively instead of what's in your hands, could increase safety.

Reminds me of an old adage, "buy cheap. buy twice"