RICHARD WILLS

Ive been using the Graupner nylon (Super Nylon Propeller 2042) available from Sussex models and other shops for £4.55 Not a weird shape and seems to work well enough .

I didnt use an Apc for that reason . I think mines got a Radio Active 12x6 or similar . Conventional shaped props look better and require less enlargement of the spinner prop slots .

Andy and I use to fly together at Rivenhall in Essex . So I got to fly some of his models including the Mossie and his very light Chipmunk . The designs are by Ivan Pettigrew and are a bit like the old kiel Kraft stringers and tissue style of construction . Probably a bit too semi scale as Andy says , but amazingly easy to fly when you compare it with the more typical 14lb 72" Mossie . You certainly felt comfortable flying it with every confidence of bringing it home in pristine condition . Going a little more scale will be the answer . But it shows what can be done . The landing speeds were trainer like , so quite modest retracts would suffice . Have a look at his plan as his method of undercarriage was unusual but clever . Thanks Andy .

Should have been coded O😉MG Must be handy having those trays either side of the cockpit , I guess for tea and biscuits etc ?

As much as I like the presence of the 72" twins ,( and if you look a the videos and still shots of the models above , they are very realistic) , the comments often used are , I dont have room for one or it wont go in my car . There is also the extra time taken to charge two batteries rather than one. The other factor is that even a lightish one of say , 10lb will require beefy retracts especially as the trunions are working for and aft rather than Mustang style . A 60" inch model on one standard 4s pack would appeal to more people and would be flown as a hack rather than a Sunday special . I'm not saying twins are the final decision , but in order to broaden the choices we must consider what the barriers are . Wing loading and landing speed must be low to protect the cheap retracts (if fitted ) . The smaller the model , the harder it is to reduce weight . For me , the design problem is fairly substantial because I would prefer a 60" model to be able to take retracts as well as be a less daunting entry level twin . We could pretty much guarantee that it would be a Mossie since I must hit the number to justify it . The Tempest and 190 could have small profit margins because of the numbers sold . I would be surprised if we hit 35 Mossies so my time and expense would be a consideration . The 60" twin would have to come apart quickly with just one coupling , but split in such a way that gave minimal storage and rigging . The reason that I chose the Ju88 and Bf110 for my first twin kits , is because they have square section fuselages . So as a twin is more complicated to make than a single engined model , at least the fuselage can be made quickly . The British stuff never has straight lines !

Both the 110 and 88 didnt disappoint and Ady flew his captured 88 in many competitions . He absolutely loved that model and Ron felt the same about his 110 . Of course, they are both excellent flyers , but you can see that these two have very nice manners . Having said that , we sold only about 15 Ju88s and maybe 25 Bf110s . Criminal really, considering the work that went in and how valued they were by those that flew them . I wont give up on the twin for the masses idea . It may be that a single pack , slightly smaller twin will win the day . The Mossie is the most awkward one , but it is without doubt the most popular .

That model is a proper box of frogs Chris . I take my hat off to the pilot . Even the Dutch roll on the way in speaks volumes . If anyone is worried about all twins being like that , then think again . If you have a look at the original WBR Ju 88 thread , you can watch Ady doing some lovely landings and full aerobatic routine with my 72" version . TNs Beaufighter also seems to fly very nicely as does my 110 . (ask Ron !) .

Hornets , Whirlwinds , I'd like them both but we both know the numbers wont stack up . If its a twin , it will be a Mossie . My first choice would be the Whirlwind but we would get maybe five hands up . Even the Mossie may not get as many votes as we hope . It would depend on what the barriers are with those versions already available on the market . Even so , I am slightly baffled about the reluctance to try a twin .

I have to agree with all of that Chris . You cant have your cake etc . I have a long grass strip which is nice when dry . Even the little Arrows Marlin /Hawk goes off , but of course we have to consider that its a different story in other clubs . We like all of our gang to be able to join the projects so there has to be enough flexibility to make that possible . The Tempests will be flying the nest soon , so it will be interesting to get some feedback on the method of construction and the flying grin factor . Results could be indicative of the next move .

That would be my reservation too . I wouldn't want to have to buy three or four large batteries that I couldn't use for my regular fleet . In fact that is what puts me off buying the rather nice Motion RC F86 . ( also I prefer the satisfaction of making my own ) . On the experimental side , I have modified the Arrows Marlin to carry light retracts and also turned it into a Red Arrows Hawk ! That has been flown quite a bit last year on my regular 4s 3300 packs . Its a quick bodge with a foam rear deck new canopy and false nose . It does prove that on a budget 4s power train , you can have quite an exotic model . Duration is only about 3.5mins but it certainly can be an exciting flight ! Its probably something I will experiment with , perhaps going slightly bigger but still light and trade in some speed for endurance .

Its a conversation we have had many times . As many have said , its also a numbers game . There has to be enough numbers to justify the enormous amount of development . The problem with that is , you can get stuck on the same subjects for ever . However , there are two areas where the background has changed for the better (for us aero modellers ) . Firstly , electric propulsion has meant that twin and multi engined subjects are now as viable as single engined aircraft . Secondly , I feel that EDF models have also reached a very practical and impressive stage . Anyone that has flown the Arrows Marlin or similar will know that it offers a lot of performance for not a lot of money and still runs on 4s . I would always try to utilise what we already have in terms of batteries , to save us all a few bob . The other interesting factor , is what we enjoy the most is not always what we dream of . What I mean by that, is that the feed back on the simple Fw190 kit has been 110% positive with many using it as their favourite hack . How would that compare in terms of end result with say a full fat laser cut , masterclass kit of something more exotic ? It would definitely take longer to make and probably cost more as it would have balsa and more parts . The P47 , Mossie and then Sea Fury , had reasonable hands up . But I wonder how that would compare with an F86 Sabre with optional retracts all running on 4s ? Or at the other end of the spectrum , a classic duelling pair for next winter being the Battle of Britain (steady leccy) 109 and Spit in the format of the Tempest and 190 ?

On the order forms going out , there will be an option to choose decals . Most will chose yellow spinner and "RB " The other option will be Closterman's JFE . We couldnt get the fancy badge on the tail though . Still, if you want a red spinner then this is the correct squadron codes .

I'm going to be posting the order forms out to those who have confirmed their desire for a Tempest on Monday . This system worked well on the 190 logistics , so keep an eye on the post next week . There will be a stamped addressed envelope included so you just have to tick a few boxes and sent it back .

What Paul said is generally true . However I have a vast collection of wheels from different manufacturers . On the same brand you could definitely go from 70mm to 76mm for rough strips . If you are not worried about looks , I have some larger and thinner than that . So anyone having issue like that , should always ask me first as I may be able to swap out the wheels for something bigger and thinner . From a looks point of view the ones shown always look in the ball park and weigh almost nothing . Ive always liked them . But I do think you have a valid point .