PatMc
-
Posts
6,242 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by PatMc
-
-
So it's 8ft x 4ft x 3/8ins then ? 😉
-
1
-
-
The variations of number bases in Imperial system is a good way to remind us that base 10 numbering system isn't necessarily the most useful in all circumstances.
-
The weight of a 100" span model isn't all that critical, especialy if you mainly intend flying from the slope. In fact it's likely there will be more occasions when a bit of extra weight would be benificial to penetrate against the prevailing wind or fly through sinking air quickly. IMO 12 oz/sq ft is a good all round target wing loading & 8oz is min to be able to fly that type of glider regularly in UK.
Making provision for adding ballast when required would be more useful than saving a few grams.
-
4 minutes ago, Phil Green said:
I hate to disagree with George but the recommended 250 watt setup is ridiculous!
That's Ollie Tiger territory 😱
-
1
-
-
Habour Air is based in Vancouver, most of their business is scheduled & commuter. IIRC there were some sightseeing destinations further afield that could be booked in advance but only when suitable aircraft were not busy with their main business committments. Something like 90% of the Canadian polulation live within a couple of hours drive to the US border. The Northern Territories flights may make good spectacle subjects for TV but are probably only a tiny proportion of the small aircraft commercial flights & mainly covered by a number of small specialist operators.
-
30 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:
Technically impressive but a practical non-starter because of the usual multiple disadvantages of batteries as a power source compared with IC. They push the usual 'green' stuff but a fact is a fact. A pity because they've put a lot of effort and money into it.
Also........in the middle of the wilds of Canada???? yeah right. Have they not watched the series 'Ice Pilots'?
Was "in the middle of the wilds of Canada" mentioned in the video ?
24 years ago I was on holiday in Vancouver & visited the harbour area several times. During one of the visits I took a sight-seeing trip on one of the Beavers doing a commuter taxi service run from Vancouver Harbour around several of the small islands close to Vancouver Island. The harbour airport was busy with Beavers & Twin Beavers but most of the scheduled destinations were short distance with just a few to the more remote parts of BC. My experience of the mainly short, relatively low level flights being the norm was pretty much as described in the video.
-
25 minutes ago, michael brigg said:
Yes I agree with you it’s definitely not fit to fly or ready to fly Ive strengthened the front end strengthened the undercarriage it was as weak as a kitten ,to be honest I’m not impressed with the ailerons as well they have no hinges
The aileron hinge method would be acceptable but the covering film used pulls away from the paint/adhesive. I re-sealed mine a couple of times but will not fly the model again until it's completely recovered with Hobbyking film.
I've made a lot of modifications to the model & will post some pics & details when I have some spare time, probably in a couple of weeks.
-
I added some nose weight to mine to achieve the cg shown on the Flair kit plan when I built it around 1986 & it was ic powered. When I re-furbed & converted it to electric around 2012 I removed the nose weight incrimentaly until the cg was back to the point shown on the pdf posted earlier. It now has a better glide & wider speed range than originaly but is just as benign to control. As mentioned in an earlier post KK didn't specify a cg position on the plan of either original versions but probably suggested builders found a cg position that suited themselves by trial & error over the ubiquitous long grass.
BTW it's a fallacy that the engines used in models like the Jnr 60 were heavy compared with today, the first Jnr 60 I saw was in 1956 it was F/F & powered by a either a Yulon 30 or 49 (I don't know which) glow plug engine. The owner also had a single channel later version Jnr 60 powered by an ED racer. The Yulon 30 weighed about 5 oz the 49 about 6 oz, the ED racer about 5.5oz. Petrol engines of the era were also lightweight but required a battery & ignition coil, however these latter were usually sited with the cg in mind.
Another fallacy is that 4s ic power is in keeping with the period of vintage models whilst electric power isn't. There were no suitable 4stroke engines for Jnr 60 size models until around the late 1970's early '80's. Even then the first available were 40 size & a bit OTT. OTOH the first electric powered RC model - a Radio Queen - flew on electric power around 1957. Graupner's & Sanwa were also flying FF electric powered models around a year or two later. Pete Russell successfully coverted his STOL Mk 1 to electric power as an experiment about 10 years before the OS40 FS appeared.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, kc said:
Sorry, I didn't notice that as it was very small on the screen when I opened the pdf. Viewed with the photos in that old thread makes it clear. Altogether a very ingenious but simple system that could be used on many other models too for transport or storage.
Glad you liked it. I've modified the tail units or tailplane alone on about 7 or 8 models that I currently have as I've built them. Some, like my Jnr 60 & Magnatilla only ever the tails removed for maintenance etc but some of my electric gliders routinely have their tailplanes removed for storage & transport between outings.
The Jnr 60's is a little over-complicated as I wanted to keep the elevator linkage pull-pull but out of sight.
BTW another reason I do it is that I have more trust in bolted on tail unit than a glued in place one.
-
2 hours ago, Geoff S said:
I've printed parts of the drawings I downloaded from the Outerzone and there are some interesting anomalies. They're not too serious but they are there.
eg
That's one of the very nicely CNC cut ribs from the set I bought last week laid on top of the rib drawing of the Outerzone drawing I've printed. It matches very well - even perfectly. However, when actually assembling the parts over the drawing, the extra single wing spar and the trailing edge are 1/4" out from where the spar needs to be to fit the rib notch. Obviously the parts are king and the wing will be built to suit the ribs. It just seems odd.
I think the reason for the anomaly is that the plan is showing a "typical" wing section it doesn't claim to be the actual section. KK didn't normaly print their ribs or formers etc accurately on their plans as they didn't want people building from their mates plan instead of buying a kit. Which of course means that Ben Buckle & Flair kits may not have 100% accurate parts of the originals.
Here's a chunk from OZ 1955 plan with the "typical" rib rotated 90 degrees confirming what you found.
-
58 minutes ago, kc said:
It might be useful to know exactly how you made the tail removable yet still aligned - bolts or rubber bands?
It's shown in the bottom right of the Jnr60 mods PDF sketch.
-
9 hours ago, cymaz said:
I had a Flair kit, fitted with an SC30fs. I had to raise the trailing edge wing seat by at least 1/8” to stop it taking off nearly vertical 🙄
I use throttle control & elevator trim - it's easier 😉
-
17 hours ago, Geoff S said:
I'm not sure. I've downloaded the drawing from both Outerzone and Aerofred (they seem to be the same) which I think are the updated ones to allow for single channel control. There's just a tiny rudder and it looks like no elevator. I assume the expected power source would be a diesel engine with a set throttle. I may make the rudder a bit bigger and add elevators, obviously. I think the tail is supposed to be detachable but I'll probably have it permanently attached.
I don't think I've ever built a model exactly to plan. There's usually something I change, even if it's very minor. In any case, even kits rarely show every detail and leave some up to the builder. This will be no different - after all, no servo mounts or battery access are shown, so all that will be 'invented' by me. It'll still look like a Junior 60, though but it'll be my Junior 60 🙂 The drawings don't show the dihedral other than by using the wing brace angle as a guide but I don't suppose it's super critical as long as it's the same both sides ... and a lot more than I'm used to.
Geoff, I'm not sure if you realise it but the bold printed parts of my post are links to Outerzones latest uploaded version of the KK original Jnr 60 plans as opposed to plans re-drawn by Ben Buckle & Flair (IMO the 1955 version is preferable from our POV).
I built mine in about 1986 from the Flair kit but made a number of modifications.
Most important IMO one was to add a new birch ply former & use wing bolts instead of elastic bands. The designed use of long distance between wing & band anchor point allows too much "stretchability" of the band for RC flying. This can cause the wing LE to lift in mild aerobatics & even sharply applied elevator corrections, which can cause too much G force & subsequent folding wings. Many people have advocated beefing up the wing centre joint but failed to identify the reason for the problem, the wings on mine are not beefed up in any way & the model has been looped, rolled flown inverted etc with no issues since it was built. In fact I've managed to loop it a number of times & roll a couple of times using the old single channel full rudder only spiral down to build up speed although I did sometimes cheat & also judiciously use throttle control (but never elevator) - buttock clench excercising manoeuvers if you're up for it. ☺️
The other mods were to make the tail removable for maintenance, to facilitate an inverted engine's fuel tank position, pull - pull control connections & occasional fitting of floats.
Finaly the original KK plans didn't show any CG position, it may have been suggested in an instruction leaflet but I'm not aware of this, those shown on BB & Flair plans must have been the kit makers' preferences. When I converted my Jnr to electric power I incrementally removed the nose weight until the CG ended in the position shown in the attached PDF sketch. Result is that the model can be flown over a wider range of speeds than previously to suit prevailing the wind conditions (or my mood) merely by using elevator trim & throttle control.
PS Here's a link to my Jnr 60 conversion from ic to electric
-
1
-
-
TOAST? cooking your own breakfast has got to count as a major achievemet, I struggle doing cornflakes. 🤣
-
1
-
-
Hi Geoff, which version are you building ? The 1946 version as in the Ben Buckle kit or the 1955 version as kitted by Flair ?
-
1 hour ago, kevin b said:
Where's Toto ? 🐶
-
On 15/09/2024 at 17:30, john stones 1 - Moderator said:
Nose down impact tends towards somethings moved, can clevices be moved under pressure, are the splines on the servo horns o.k, are horns still at 90 degrees ?
Smart Arse !! 🤗🤣
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Engine Doctor said:
It appears a few of our ideas about incidence and vintage FF models converted to RC is nonsense !
An awful lot of us have been sucessfully flying this " nonsense " for many years, and also flew a Yamamoto mk1 , 2 and the fg version
We all have our ways and means to tackle a problem .
Step 1 being -
First create a problem where none currently exist ... 🤣
-
1
-
-
What's "the Junior 60 ilk" ?
-
2 minutes ago, Jim Hearnden 1 said:
Greater airspeed, so it will generally "kite" into any form of head wind. Assuming the power level & therefore still air speed remains the same, then any wind you fly into will be added & effectively you're flying faster. In a full size you frequently need to change trim from flying downwind and turn into wind.
Sorry but that's absolute nonsense.
-
3
-
-
56 minutes ago, Engine Doctor said:
The incidence angle on vintage plans is often for free flight and generally needs reducing for rc flying unless your ok with holding in down elevator when flying at anything faster than a glide.
Nonsense, there's no need, or sense, in changing incidence angles. You have both elevator & motor control. Just don't use a modern day sport/aerobatic power level set-up.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Andy Stephenson said:
Could it be that the ailerons were plugged crossed and the effect was only noticed on finals?
That sounds like the most likely scenario, in fact possibly the only logical explanation.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Keith Berriman said:
I have had success with good quality 2" masking tape
Ditto ! 👍
-
5 hours ago, Edgeflyer said:
The worst thing is no real room for a 3s lipo. It sits almost vertically in the cockpit which doesn't look good or authentic. Against that the smooth nose is nicer than originally. It will "hover" into the wind and is beautifully stable with its 3 channel control and large dihedral...
Mine seemed ancient when I got it but looking at other comments it probably is the wider fuselage version.
Here's a link to my Jnr 60 refurb & conversion from ic to electric thread from 12 years ago. You'll see that I managed to modify the nose area in order to be able to house the lipo vertically from inside the cowl. There's a YT video of it's first electric flight, albeit the resolution isn't too good & the "hatcam" was at about 25 degrees off horizontal but it does include a loop a roll & a couple of touch & goes. ☺️
The rear wingspar visible through the covering under the wing of your model confirms that it's the later 1956 wide fuselage version. 👍
Sign of the times - funnies * Remember this is a family friendly forum and inappropriate postings will be removed without warning.
in Chit-chat
Posted · Edited by PatMc
Hmm, what type of power do petrol petrol & diesel pumps use at the filling station ?