RICHARD WILLS
-
Posts
2,068 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by RICHARD WILLS
-
-
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 .
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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 .
-
16
-
-
Looks great so far LM . U/c mount is your next challenge 😬
Is that a Braeburn , or Cox's Pippin ?
-
1
-
-
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
-
1 hour ago, Silver Wolf said:
Any alternatives to Mr RC sound? I believe Mr. RC Sound is not selling to individual customers any more due to the European Union's GDPR regulations ☹️.
No rush from me either Bf 110 still in box 🤣 also have a "Hurri" part built
I think motion Rc has a deal with him . Have a little shufti.
-
34 minutes ago, Silver Wolf said:
Looking forward to them, never thought that I would build build a Spit. Thought that they would be common. In the two clubs that I have been a member, there has only been a couple. Owners just seemed to be intimidated to fly them (maybe for good reason?).
Used to fly a mustang from Cambrian models, it was really good fun but did not like it when it got a bit breezy. Hope to get air under the FW190 soon😇.
Just out of interest anybody using a sound system on any of the replica models?
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)
-
1
-
1
-
-
Beware the Hun in sun .
Tally Ho chaps!
-
2
-
-
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 😉
-
9
-
-
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 .
-
3
-
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
-
Well done Leccy . That shows off the Mk9s lines beautifully . Even with the additional goldfish bowl .😬
-
1
-
-
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 .
-
1
-
-
On 01/06/2025 at 21:13, JonL said:
I've been lurking with interest around the WR threads for a while now. There seems to be an awful lot of help, support and ideas with the builds, which would be of great use.
What would the approx cost of a kit be with post within UK?
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 .
-
3
-
-
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!
-
6
-
-
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 .
-
5
-
-
Don't tell him your name Pike !
Stupid Boy .....
-
2
-
1
-
-
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 .
-
6
-
-
Yes Andrew, the 800kv equates to 12000 rpm with no prop on 4s , so that means that it would be fair to assume that a loaded but flying model might get close to 10000rpm which is the same as an OS52FS on a 12x6 . 6" pitch props are the most popular and dont produce much of a take off swing , which is easier .
3 and 4 blade gets trickier but can work well if you get the right combination .
Luckily , the separate blades on the FMS 4 blade option allow for shimming to change pitch ,so can be fine tuned .
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Gordon McConnell said:
Richard, what prop do you run on the 800kV motor on the Mustang? I am running a 16x8 prop on a Overlander Tornado Thumper 50/55 580kV. Performance is adequate but it’s a heavy motor and wondering if the 800kV is a better choice.
Gordon , we may be able to Pep yours up a bit depending on if you using a 2 blade or 4 blade prop .
I am using a 14x8 , four blade prop from FMS which I can shim to get more or less power .
If you are using a 16x8 two blade the output will be quite different .
Let us know what you are using .
-
Ive got some 600kv motors for the four blade prop and 800Kv for the two blade . all £24 plus post .
.jpg.434bfbb9bcffcd8a72f30db29cc654c0.jpg)
Don't tell him your name Pike !
Never mind the weather - who has been flying, then?
in Flying Field Reports and Chat
Posted
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