RICHARD WILLS

Well David, there is . Basically the wheel rake forward needs to be more dramatic . If your retract mounts have been repaired a few times and a bit scruffy , you may want to do a bit of open heart surgery . Paul and Eric have both fitted Pauls 3D printed mount which fits between the existing ribs . It is quite sophisticated but does automatically mean that the angles are spot on . They also use a rubber pad to reduce shock on hard ground . The new foam veneer wing I am flying has a wooden version of Pauls mount sunk into the wing . Paul does provide the undercarriage mounts to those that request them .

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 😬)

Useful stats Kim . The short coming of looking at just Watts is that you could for example put a large diameter ,low pitch prop on and measure a high wattage . Implying that the power would be enough to fly a model of a certain weight (based on Watts per pound ) . But here is the problem . The above mentioned prop will draw current (and therefore watts ) but not shift the air at sufficient speed to get the model to its comfortable cruise speed . If we look at your 500kv motor for example , hooking it up to 4s will give 500 x 16v = 8000 rpm with no prop . Knock off say 2000 rpm for the prop load and you are turning a prop at 6000 rpm . Nowhere near what a 6" pitch would require . A 6" pitch prop would need about 9-10K and an 8" pitch about 8000rpm . So when you put 600kv in the equation , you get 16 x 600= 9600 with no prop or perhaps 8500 with a prop in the air . That works with a 8" three blade rather well . 9" pitch would give a little "War emergency boost" . Two blade props will allow the motor to unload much better ,so you could use an 800kv motor on a 12 or 13 x6 and get longer runs on the same performance. Static testing is unreliable in my humble opinion as the air being shifted is "dead " . Once the model is moving its like riding your bike with a 50mph tailwind , hence you can back off the gas and still go as fast . So to summarise , two options for models of this size . 1) 580-650 kv with a three blade 13 or 14 dia x 8 or 9 pitch . (scale look , better climb 5mins from 3300 , more torque to manage on take off) 2)800kv with a two blade 12x6 or 13x6 ( sport look, worse climb 7mins from 3300, less take off swing ) Richard

Well done Leccy . That shows off the Mk9s lines beautifully . Even with the additional goldfish bowl .😬

No problem John . You made a brilliant come back on that model . She looks even better than before . Ive seen ARTF fliers chuck a good model with 10% of that damage . You have practically built it twice !

Absolutely fabulous David. That model would look amazing on the big screen . Thanks for sharing the build with us all . Very inspiring .

Sorry for the delay chaps , Ive been away for a few days . Jon , the Fw190 is £139 and the Tempest is £149 . Both require £10 post in the UK . You are correct in your assessment . All of those who watch and contribute on my threads are extremely keen to convert others to this practical way of building and flying . You will always get loads of support .

I think its a shame that people get put off by the Spitfires "reputation " . With light wing loading and good wing sections , the Spitfire can be a delight to fly . In many ways , it should fly a lot like the Tempest . The main disadvantage is the narrow track undercarriage . Firstly , since many of you have been flying off Dollys , this isnt a factor . Secondly , by using Foam veneer wings this time , the undercarriage (when fitted) can be installed in such a way to dissipate the energy . There are two other specific bonus features (and this comes from somebody who is not specifically a Spitfire fan ) , 1) when that shape comes together in front of you , particularly as you fit the wing fairings , which bring all of those elliptical shapes together , it really is like nothing else . The blending of curves and elegance of the long tail is without comparison elsewhere in the world of WW2 fighters . 2) Everyone at the field you visit reacts positively to the Spitfire in all of its variants! "Tally Ho" chaps! https://thescalemodelhangar.com/2017/03/27/first-light/

So , how would you all feel about a another Dogfight Double along the same lines as the Fw190 /Tempest ? I would choose this time . It would be the most famous pairing , the Battle of Britain 109E and the Mk1a Spitfire . Foam wings etc same as the previous pair . Dolly launch capability with retract option. My gut feeling is that the numbers would justify the Spit but perhaps not the 109 . The aim with both is to make them easy to fly and operate and still look as good as anything on the market .

Don't tell him your name Pike ! Stupid Boy .....

Outstanding modelling David . Great subject and showcases your skill and attention to detail . Very inspiring to us all . This model will look absolutely real in the air . My old 100" Lancaster is nowhere near this level , but it has real presence in the air and may give you a hint as to what yours may look like against a blue sky .