RICHARD WILLS

Yes Ron , he bought the first pair in a size too large...........😕

The Geordie Lad actually popped into Wiltshire today to let me fly the new Me109e prototype . Apparently he has taken to wearing two hats . This , he explained,is because the larger hat doesnt actually fit and ends up dropping down over his face . So he wears a smaller hat under the large hat . I pointed out that if everyone adopted this stance , we could all be wearing two or more sets of clothes . Why not just buy stuff that fitted in the first place ? Anyway , despite this millinery perversion he had made a very good job of the model . Needs a few cosmetic additions to be "Fit to Kit " ,but flies very nicely with benign stall and sprightly performance . Outside of Knotty Ash and the Treacle Mines , I don't think multiple hat wearing is going to become a thing 😬

31 degrees at the field . Hot by English Standards in Wiltshire . Didnt stop a pair of marauding Fw190 from from carrying out an armed recconnaisance

Yes , go for the first drawing as the second angle will punch the spar too hard if you hit a pot hole . As you say , to keep it simple put all the forces through the spar . So rather than create a separate block mount for the torsion bar and anchor point , why not face the spar webbing from top top to bottom with marine ply . About 5" long will do the job . The wire will run along the bottom in saddle clamps then go vertical at the inner end to act as the anchor . (as shown in Eric's last picture) . Make the vertical full depth of the wing though .

LM , lets keep it simple . Looking at you r first drawing , you are nearly there . The impact on landing gear is mostly back rather than up . With the wing loading you will have , up shock will be minimal , so forget the lower coil. However , as Eric says , any bracing behind the leg will be a problem . It will either break the brace or damage something else . Set it up like a low wing sport model where the undercarriage wire turns to run along the wing span wise for a few inches before being anchored . That will allow the impact to be absorbed like an anti roll bar on your car . The next problem , is what to do about the Spats being damaged by the rotating (under impact ) legs . I think that with the slowish landings expected , the rearward twist will be modest on most arrivals ,especially with your forward kink . Perhaps make the spats a little larger at the back to allow more swing and retain them at the top with magnets attached to an inner former at the top.

A quick update on the Mossie . Converting the half foam board model into a wooden kit had concerned me in a number of ways . Firstly , could the weight be kept similar (particularly at the back end ) in order that a 64" model could balance with just one 3300 4s battery ? Secondly , the joint separation behind the wing being easy be structurally sound . Thirdly , with the upswept rear fuselage meaning that my usual central crutch would not be horizontal , how did I mount the tail assembly firmly ? On the mock up shown below you can see that the tail has a long overlap onto the crutch and is at the same time , sandwiched by the foam decks making it nice and stable . The fuselage joint is nice with the radio aerial being extended through the model to pin it in place . There will be a magnet at the bottom of the aerial tube , so no screws or fasteners to lose at the field . The best result is that even with one pack and no props it balances pretty much on the money . Also note the little tail moulding which saves both work and weight at the rear end (well done Paul ) Out of interest , we found the quickest route was for me to make a wooden one , send it to Paul who then creates the same in 3D for a male mould . It compares well with the foam board variant in the last shot .

Looks great so far LM . U/c mount is your next challenge 😬 Is that a Braeburn , or Cox's Pippin ?

Ive been away Gordon , so missed the pictures. Your 190 looks fabulous (so does your grass!) I dont worry too much about the underside of my models . Ive never had anyone pick one up off the grass and inspect it .😬 I particularly like the choice of colours on yours . Can you fill us all in so that others might copy ? Richard

I think motion Rc has a deal with him . Have a little shufti.

Yes , Paul and I both use the Mr Rc sound systems . The new Spitfire and Mossie will have a space set aside for the speaker .

no list yet chaps so dont panic , we never leave a man behind ! but comments welcome (and questions)

Beware the Hun in sun . Tally Ho chaps!

The Mosquito is still progressing so lets not panic about that . It is complicated for me in order that it is way less complicated for you . It wont be for everyone though . So lets have a look at what else might be on the menu in the near future . I have had a Spitfire design running since 1996 . In 2016 it really took a leap forward into the laser cut Mk IX . But I havent made any for quite a while as people seemed to lose interest , or had already built one . Its a shame because both Paul and Eric still have theirs and rate them very near the top of their "squadrons" . Its not to say we didnt tweak the design from 2016 , so it may be time to look at the most iconic of WW2 aircraft once again . If there were any negatives about the laser cut kit , it would be the bottom loading battery and the undercarriage fixing and geometry . Paul , with his obsessive attention to detail (I'm cowering slightly waiting for the left hook ) has persevered with the undercarriage and now has it absolutely spot on . All three of our Spits run straight as a die and do not nose over ! The experiments with resilience have also paid off and no longer to do we hear the "click of doom " when the undercarriage plate either cracks or detaches . Given the success of the Tempest/190 pairing last year (well over 100 so far ) , I felt that everyone was ready for the ultimate pairing . It has to be the battle of Britain early Spitfire and its nemesis the 109E . You have probably all seen the 109E flying prototype that Eric has been playing around with , so you can see that with some additional mouldings and details that the Luftwaffe option is nearly there . I am under no illusion that it will be the main draw . Ever since I were a lad , Ive heard experts tell me that Spitfires are difficult to fly . But now , after 35 years of doing my own designs, admittedly in the same zone of the club size Warbird, I feel equipped to deal with the "Big Issue" . That issue is that 95% of people that get into building scale models would ultimately like to build a Spitfire but have been warned off by other people or put off by other difficult to fly design . For me, the Tempest /190 adventure was rewarding in several ways . Because of the simple way we presented the kits here on this forum , several newbies had a go . We really need these chaps , so everyone should be as patient and helpful as possible because they ensure the continuation of our kits and the building hobby . Secondly , the Dollies (special thanks to all those that shared their own designs ) have been way better than I expected . They give people the chance to get into WW2 stuff without the initial complication of retracts , which can be a huge barrier . Lets face it , if you have say 50 flights on the 190 and have belly landed with ease every time , you will feel quite comfortable landing on wheels with the same "old friend". So, with all of that in mind , my intention is to create an early mark Spitfire which will be tough and light so that it can stand both belly landing and retracts . The build must be quick and straightforward for those with limited experience . (I sort of assess it by thinking , that if you have made a Chris Foss "Whatever" you can do this ) . I have switched back to a four piece foam veneer wing . They are tough, light and accurate . They also take retracts better than a built up wing . There will be a new top hatch for the battery . The tail has been tweaked to give a slightly leaner look at the back end . The wind shape is very accurate in plan form and also generates a lot of lift at low speeds which means it will stall very late and even when savagely provoked just does a lazy wing over . The model below lacks any detail yet but only weighs 5lb . Hand on heart , it handles beautifully . So the "Big Issue " I referred to is that I want people to say in reply to those who announce the infamous words "dont buy a Spitfire , loads of trouble " , "perhaps not , I fly mine every week " . As they said in the war , the peoples Spitfire 😉

I like your thinking LP . The Bearcat was a great result in that it was a big , impressive model, that was cheap and approached the finish line in a series of comfortable stages (ie building a flying box first ) Giving how cheap and available Foam Board is , It really is criminal not to "Go Large" . My only limitation would be , can it go in the car ? Having said that , producing in sections is also quite easy . I like the idea of large but cheap , so I would try to use two cheap batteries that I already have , rather than buy expensive 6 cell packs . But I'm sure you have already thought about that . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGi-hFlzzNI

I agree . I have never had a slow speed response from this site , but very lethargic at the moment . (not me , the site 😬)