RICHARD WILLS

Sorry Martin , Ive stopped sending abroad . Too much hassle ! Regards Richard

Thanks for the kind words chaps . Very much appreciated . lovely pictures too .

Well done wee Scotties ! Lovely pictures as usual and look at Dave holding that nose up . As Mr Punch would say ; "Thats the way to do it !" I must also say , that your fabric covered rudder illusion is first class . Very nice for your first hand painted warbird .

Well done Alan (and Martin ) . An old friend of mine at Chelmsford club , made a very nice job of this kit . It flew really well and looked great, to the point that Aerotech actually tried to buy it off him to put on their stands at shows . I can honestly say it is worth building . Alan , you got a bargain , but I'm sure you will make a nice job of it. Be good to see one finished again !

Who would have thought you could get so much out repurposing children's play houses ? I remember visiting the site of the "V" Festival in Chelmsford a day after the event . There were enough fibreglass battens and nylon sheets abandoned to create a squadron of Zeppelins . Criminal really , but that's the new green generation for you . You seem to have the launching sorted , but what about the retrieval ? The Highland "sticky grass " seems to be quite a problem compared with our "soft southern " grass . I believe Eric Winkle Brown carried out several landings of a Vampire without undercarriage on an inflatable mattress . Its not for me to make suggestions though , so I shall probably LiLo on that one .

Looking back at Dave Naylors lovely pictures , I can see that he takes off from Murat's very comfortable looking dolly . As it is suitably foam covered , could you not all simply land back on it ? It does seem that you wee Scottish Lads have grown "awkward " grass , so perhaps the fresh air up there is having an adverse effect ? I blame Heather .....🤐

In replying to a few things : Leccy , you make some good observations about variable ground "arresting". The 190 uses the same size retract units as the Tempest , but Paul made the supporting ribs and plate with different angles included as you would expect . Chris , regarding the scoop , it isnt really as big a problem as you think . Although not as ideal as say a Spitfire , the model will fly very nose up if required so the actual speed when the model touches can be quite slow compared to others . I know you are a lightning fan and I have built about six from scratch , all belly landers . They never broke at the front , but always at the back as the low rudders grabbed something . Much worse than the Tempest . P51s have a different problem . The scoop is way back and so when they touch on the scoop the nose can dip aggressively and do some damage . Dave N, bent his X mount on the Tempest and that takes some doing . Same venue . What you need is a nice sheet of plastic , a hose and some fairy liquid . 😁

Thanks for taking the time to show us your mods Murat . The problem seems to be the rapid deceleration when the model is belly landing and being grabbed by long grass or an untimely high spot . After the first twenty flights , mine got retracts and so I havent had a problem since . (only had one "engine out " on the second test flight ) as we have short slippery grass . If we could watch the point of contact in slow motion , we could perhaps imagine the stresses . With the model stopping suddenly , the motor tries to continue having considerable weight . The critical point is that it will tend to rotate forward and down , levering on the bottom two screws of the X mount . Therefor the most important and effective mod is to put a long bolt (doesnt need any more than M3 or M4 ) to run through the top of F1 and F2 . Big washer on both ends . Gluing will simply pull apart . You could probably use wood screws in from either end into a hardwood block a bit like you have shown . It is only the belly landing Tempests that are showing this trait , so we could also have a look at landing technique . Of all of my 55" Warbirds , the Tempest will fly the slowest . That is down to several factors . Reasonable tail areas and wing area hence fairly low wing loading . Leading edge that is barely swept back which means that the wing is generating maximum lift all of the time rather than trading a little lift in for a smoother ride in bad weather . On that basis , the model can be put down very slowly when you are confident . A longer elevator horn will make the model more "damped " at the lower speed ranges and give you the confidence you need when close to Mother Earth . If I were still belly landing I would get down to about a foot off , then start gently feeding in up which would bring the nose up without gaining height (unless you are still going too fast . The model will just bleed off the speed and sink tail first onto the deck . Eric and I have been flying the Tempest a lot now and probably have about 200 plus landings between us . We both agreed that the Tempest will come in with a three point attitude quite happily and will fly around like that if pushed . In a nutshell , if the ,motor keeps trying to escape ,its because there is still loads of energy in it (speed x mass) when the model is "arrested " . So , try to avoid "arresting " and then anchor your motor further back into the airframe (hence the bolt or similar ) .

Im not a jet expert , and I like the Avanti as my friend has one , but the Arrows Marlin is excellent for a first time jet . The big bonus is the price of the model at only about £165 plus you can use all the 4s batteries that you already have . (I use my regular 3300s) Secondly , if you do stack it (they move quick and will roll in just as fast ) its not going to break the bank . Down side is : no retracts , but I have fitted some to mine and modified it to a Hawk . Why not see if Colin will part with his early Avanti ? 6S Batteries are pricey .

So back to the Tempest tweeks . Firstly , I have fitted a piece of plastic to my elevator horn which will effectively make it bigger . The kit supplied one only allowed you to hook the clevis in a maximum of about 22mm from the hinge line . My extended version allows me to move the clevis to about 32mm from the hinge line . 35 mm would have been even better on reflection . The thinking is as my previous post . I want to use the entire movement of the servo to allow the servo pot to give me back the finesse that I feel is missing . In conjunction with the larger horn ,I have set the EPA back to 100% . I've had four flights with it and can report that the rather "jumpy " elevator has pretty much disappeared. I have also been testing the new Spinner for the Tempest . I have some on the way for those that want them . Remember that they will have "for static display" only written on the instructions . PM me if you want one . Old one fitted on left , new one on right . Brass bushes and balanced . It allows the motor to come forward to lose ballast too .

Thanks for posting those shots Murat . I spoke to Dave a couple of weeks ago on the phone. I think I'm right in saying that this was his first scale build . I know he was one of the last to get on the Tempest band wagon , so he has caught up fast and made a lovely job of his kit . It would be interesting to here a little bit about his build from the point of view of someone who hadnt built and finished to such "complicated" level before . I'd like to think that our process of using brown paper and B &Q paints , combined with a relatively quick build kit which featured foam veneer wings, would make this kind of model more accessible to those perhaps considering having a go . I have to say that I have been very impressed with the final outcome and particularly the finish on the Fw190s and Tempests . Well done chaps , I think you could make pretty much anything now . I have a handful of each model in stock still if anyone has a friend who is "teetering" on the edge . On a similar track I have been looking at a tougher and quicker build wing for the WB Spitfire kit . The Mk9 kit is a very nice all laser cut kit , but looking at the short runways and rough fields that some of you fly from , I think a more robust version of the Spitfire , more along the lines of the 190 would be useful . Show below is the latest reincarnation of the foam wing with a small amount of balsa added . The shape is exactly that of the Arthur Bentley drawings . Obviously there is some sanding , but actually not that much . The wings will stand up to bellylanding very well but also accommodate landing gear at a later date .

Paul has designed and printed a new accurate spinner for the Tempest . I had been using the cheap £3 yellow one but like you all , I know they are pretty poor quality . Its been too windy to fly but Ive run it up in the garden and it is as smooth as silk . The screws are plated allen bolts with brass inserts in the spinner backplate so should last a good long time . Before the wind set in we did have a lovely day on Monday and I flew the Tempest a lot , back to back with the 190 , Yak and P51 . It flies beautifully with exceptional stall qualities but even with small movements on the elevator , it still is not as progressive in the initial elevator movements as the others . So I had a thought (dangerous for Paul and Phil ) , but this was a simple one . I'm guessing , like me we have all been reducing the elevator throw on our transmitters as the clevis was already as far out as possible . Well, I wonder if the reduced movement actually accentuates the initial movement of the servo and emphasises the tiny slop in the servo or push rod because both become a larger proportion of the original large sweep . (Did I mention Sweep ?) . As an experiment , I have extended my aileron horn and increased my EPA back to 100% . Might achieve nothing , but interesting if it improves finesse . I'll keep you posted . Note to Moderators : Tweaking on this site is acceptable as opposed to Twerking . 😬

Thanks for your input chaps . Of course I know our regular gang pretty well and have met or chatted to all of them at some time . I know they are sympathetic to the cause and having dealt with the dangers of spinning props for years are not really going to be threatened by a spinner . The way that Paul prints our spinners seems to be very effective. In fact the only spinner that I have had explode was the FMS one fitted to his WB 109 . (In flight ) . Not to say it cant happen to any spinner . The culprit in my experience is when a spinner strips its thread on one of the cone securing screws . Even a slight loosening will cause a massive imbalance leading to destruction . I remember most of the CML Me109 spinners going that way because I had a flood of people calling me to see if my 109 spinner would fit as a substitute .(It didnt as smaller scale ) My reservation of leaving it to print locally ie sending the STL file to the customer is that we have no control over the print speed /heat or material which could lead to a de laminating product which would put everyone off and give a bad reputation . I will give it some more thought and perhaps encourage some of the others to give their opinion . Ultimately I want the models to look and perform like proper WW2 aircraft and that , for me ,does require the correct spinners . If I have to go through the long process of designing and kitting the Mosquito , the last thing I want to do is put some funny pointy spinners on it because they are available from J Perkins . Equally I dont want to be sued by an over zealous newbie that I dont know and lose my house .😬

Yes , all good points . Here is the thing . Over the last few years Warbirds Replicas and other Cottage manufacturers have been less and less well provided with accessories like spinner , wheels , retracts etc . This is probably due to the swing toward ARTFs and away from traditional building . For all of us that remember the Flair scout range , we will also remember that by the time you had bought the guns , wheels solartex etc ,you had pretty much doubled the price of the kit . Nowadays the big whole salers dont really have a need to stock that stuff and China only provides what suits them . Luckily , technology has compensated . WR has had 3d printers pretty much since their inception which have become more sophisticated over the years plus of course , decent laser cutting facilities . Whenever possible , I like to steer away from buying stuff in . It is simply not reliable and often a compromise . However we all need to take this on board if you want WR to carry on : WR makes very little money as the whole thing is really run on the passion of those involved . But even that has its limits as it does involve Paul and I using up an enormous amount of our time which could obviously be used for our own indulgencies . The up coming issue is Spinners . W e do produce spinners for ourselves that are perfect in shape. They run true and smooth and do not break . But we cannot sell them as flying spinners . The cost of liability insurance is prohibitive and ultimately simply not worth the risk . So several options . 1) You buy them on the basis of using them for static display . 2 ) You attempt to buy a commercial product 3 ) We sell you the file to print . But if anyone abuses that and prints off some for others you kill the Golden Goose . Sounds a bit over the top , but if you sign a waiver you can do what you like with the spinner . Before anyone replies , honestly put yourself in my position . To put some perspective on this matter , I have been flying my Fw190 for the last twenty flights on a 3D printed prop !

Arthur Bentley drawings . Spot on . Ive asked Paul to look into making a proper spinner for the Tempest . If you wind back to the pictures of my model which is one of the few that employ the cheap and rather crude plastic 3" Spinner , you will notice that because it has a skirt that is deeper than the prop it was necessary to add a packer behind the motor mount to bring the motor forward 12mm . I think Eric uses the same spinner . The advantage may be that the motor/prop/spinner weight is further forward than those with flat backed spinners. A new spinner may allow people to lose a little nose ballast , have an accurate "Tempest " shape spinner and at the same time run a little smoother . That is a win all round . I would also provide a 12mm ply doubler to be simply screwed to your existing fire wall .

Ahem , I will leave you all to judge but this is what the model that Leccy and I remembered looked like .

Thanks for filling in a few gaps Eric . Your Mk2 looks fabulous . In fact I am so pleased with what you have all done with the Tempest . I remember a few years back , VQ launched a 55" Tempest but didnt seem to bring it to this country . Having always been a fan I could feel myself being drawn towards it . But it was in no way as good as the results you chaps have produced . It was too shiny and not as near to scale shape . Looking at some of the fabulous pictures of the Tempests , you can imagine if they were available as ARTFs , how many would sell ? To that end , would you all mind making another one each for the lazy BugXXrs who stand by your one slobbering but cant be bothered to make one ? £250 to them seems cheap ! Just kidding 😁 As we have said before , WW2 modelling is always going to have to tail heavy issue which of course is expected when you consider the full size has an enormous multi cylinder engine . Luckily , the Tempest can carry a huge amount of weight as it generates so much lift . However , it is worth looking at where weight at the back end has been accumulated so that future designs which may not be so tolerant are not disappointing in flight performance . Anything forward of the C of G is irrelevant , so reinforce the front as much as you like . Anything around the tail assembly (including paint , covering , glue and varnish ) be wary ! Well done chaps , super effort all round with fabulous results .

I also wanted to say , that Dave Naylor has just finished his Tempest and even though he had not attempted anything like a full on warbird before , he has made a lovely job of it . Lipo man was in the same position with the Fw190 so I will try to discover what the good and bad of both builds was in order that we may understand the reservations of those teetering on the edge of our warm pool . Not just the reservations , perhaps also the highs?

Good idea Murat . Just do it in stages and be aware that you will be making your elevator more powerful at each step .

I had a nice chat with David Naylor this morning . He belongs to the same club as Murat and Leccy up in Scotland . He is at the final stage of build with his Tempest and wanted to know what tweaks I had made to mine and where the C of G is . Well first of all , lets go back to me building and flying the prototype . Obviously it is a new model and not really "locked" in the final variant until I have done some shake down flights . I can only really base all of my decisions on what I have designed or observed on previous models. A classic example would be motor mounting . I will quite often just PVA glue my motor mount and surrounds in for the test flights . The reason for that is , I may have to change thrust lines or even move the motor forward or back to allow practical balance points . Consequently I am not too surprised if the motor mount comes apart during one or other of the test flights (on landing ) . By then I would know the set up is correct or not . As It happened , the Tempest set up was the correct compromise for a model with a high thrust line (relative to the wing ) so on about the third belly landing I wasnt too upset to see my motor hanging out . The motor trying to escape is accentuated by those with no undercarriage . Where as the FW190 has a lower thrust line and rounder cowl , the Tempest has a slight disadvantage . Not a massive problem though . I have now completed nearly sixty flights . 25 with no landing gear , the rest with retracts . The simple answer is to fill in the gap between the two front formers with scrap balsa . I also put a long bolt through the top of both formers with a tube in between so that first former cannot bend forward when the model stops abruptly and the motor wants to carry on . It's all about transferring the energy away from the nose . You can see my "mods" and I make no apology for their rough appearance . If it hadnt worked it would all have had to come out . You can also see how I dont screw fix my cowl . The elastic band allows the cowl to kick up like a helmet visor ,which I feel sure is why I'm still on the original . The screws are always where they start splitting too , so I dont have any ! The final revelation ( Murat and Chris Walby will like this ) . My current C of G is now at 95mm from the front of the wing . The model is still incredibly tolerant with a ridiculously slow stall . I can fly across our runway in a three point attitude at what looks like a lazy jog . The elevator is still powerful . I have 12mm up and 6mm down . Overall , the more I fly it , the more I like it . If I had a Spitfire that was as tough and simple to fly , we'd have more people flying warbirds.

Eight hundred GPS units seems excessive Ron , surely Two Hundred and Twenty would have satisfied most needs?

A bit more on the Mossie chaps . The nacelle mouldings came out really well . Nice and crisp with sufficient thickness to require little internal structure . I also made a wooden tail cone , which I sent to Paul to convert to a 3D model before creating a vac formed male mould . That will save a lot of time for the kit builder . The laser cut ply internals for the nacelles have a very close fit and by being jig tabbed cannot be out of true . So far so good . We will be moving onto the forward part of the fuselage next . I have already completed most of the back end .

Peter Houghton built one of the Warbirds Fw190s over the winter and has been flying it for the last couple of weeks (when the wind eased off ) . Unfortunately I was the only camera man available so apologies to all those on this thread who take magnificent shots . His 190 is based on a fighter bomber sent to North Africa , hence the Tan paintwork . It's quite light ,even with retracts so seems to be a keeper . I know the bloke who designs them ....

Hello David , The two motors will run off one 4s pack of around 3300mah . Technically you could use any motor KV from 500KV to 1000KV . However , I would offer a word of caution . The spinners will be made with a certain suitable prop in mind so the prop pitch and three blade slots will all be compatible with the motors I use on the prototype . I will probably buy a batch of motors and props for that reason . We might make some two blade spinners too for those that want to belly land . That would give more prop options . The problem I had with the Fw190 build was that some chaps had spare motors rescued from something else , but they often had short prop shafts or smaller diameter shafts . Your choice of course , just think through the whole spinner/ prop /motor fit first .