stu knowles

I have this plan. It is just waiting its turn to get to the top of the list. I look forward to hearing how you find it when you start sticking wood. stu k

The correct way to set up the Walbro type carb is to get the thing running at about 2000 rpm, which is only just up from a fast tick over. Adjust the slow running jet (which is always furthest away from the carb mouth) for best speed and then screw out one quarter turn. Then open flat out and adjust the high speed jet for best speed, then open '10 to 15 minutes = quarter turn just less) Check and repeat as necessary.   These instructions are lifted from a husquvarna chainsaw handbook and are contrary to many of the things that I have read about Walbro carbs in the past,To be honest I was very sceptical when I read them.  However, since adopting them, I have found them reliable and they have improved the running of my own engines.  If this doesn't afffect a cure, you know to look elsewhere. Ignition system seem to work or they don't so i would always look at the fuel supply first, and scrupulously clean the carb.  Hope you manage to get it sorted.stu k Edited By stu knowles on 19/01/2012 15:44:15 Edited By stu knowles on 19/01/2012 15:45:16

Flanker,My guess would be that first flights will take place well away from the public and that the brave people who are going to commit aviation with this engine will no doubt take it slow and work through any problems that arise. I think that they deserve the support of us lesser mortals, you know, one day we all might benefit from their efforts to expand the envelope  Not knocking innovation......... well thats one term that you could use.. I could think of others.  Course, thats just my view stu k

I think that one of the few weak points of the Scout designs is that the centre sections are sheeted and very rigid, whereas the outer wings are open structures with quarter square spars. In a cartwheel, they all break the spars, usually adjacent to the centre section . I have a Baronette which tipped onto the wingtip and did the spars in all three wings.  Might be worth thinking about quarter square spruce or extra sub spars to taper the stress out. - just a thought  stu k

Well I am prepared to be proved wrong but I have never heard BT name assosiated with this or any other CAP kit, (except to hear that one is vasty inferior to the other) Peter Russell described CAP designs as 'Don't use one piece of wood if you can get away with seven' . This would be the most polite description of the Swordfish, although it did fly quite well after much modding and lightening of the tail.  I have no experience of the Mossy although the two that I have seen have not flown. These designs were first introduced in the early 70's (to my knowledge) - they may go further back than that.  I would seek as much advice as you can before going further than opening the box. stu k

Al, thanks forn the info on the web site. I've been on there and left a message, asking to put my name down for one out of the next batch. I'll post on here if I get a response.regardsstu k

I think that Andy has got it right. Search for 'touch up gun' and look at the gravity fed types. These can be controlled down to near air brush fine-ness, good for weathering effects, but car easily spray paint the full model. Compresser - mine is the 2hp version, quite small for storage, not too noisy, will run out of puff on larger jobs but no problem really. As VA suggests, they cam be put to many other uses too.  stu k

Hello Alan,Yes mate,I'd be pleased to get any info. I'm sure there was a comment about this model on one of the forums, but which, when and what was said, I've no idea, at that time, I didn't need a replacement. I've had mine for 10 years on more, bought on a 'Model Shop Safari' to Blackburn models, (hanging up in the shop), and since then it has had three engines, each getting a bit bigger, and it became my fave, cold weather model, just lift out of the car, fuel, fling, fly, and off home again to thaw out. and Fast!!, up there with the best of them. Really gutted when it went in.  so yes all info to track down another appreciated. I have googled but not found anything.Cheers stu k

Anyone have any knowledge of the 'THING'?? A one metre span delta type with simple box fus slung below trhe wing. I had a '25 powered version until recently when it became a victim of a dead battery. I'm told that someone, somewhere does occasional batches of kits??  Any leads would be much appreciated. stu k Edited By stu knowles on 22/12/2011 09:55:09

One of my oldest and most flown models is a Puppeteer, It must be 15 years old and it has flown a LOT! I have built and flown all of the Scout series and found the Pup the best by a mile, probably because its that little bit bigger. It has only one fault, If you can't get it into the car fully assembled, ( as with any Bipe), then choose something else, or modify during the build to make assemble as fast and simple as possible. Bolting up 8 strut fixings for example, is not something to be done with cold hand. As for the DB offerings, I have no direct experience of their kits... but hope to change that before too long.stu k

. The club in question has a measured, recorded and 'comfirmed' interferance hotspot area that has been experiencing interferance of the 35mgz band over the last 2 years. This level of stray 35mhz transmssions has been increasing over the past 12 months and approx 5 models have all experience interferance or total loss of radio signal, resulting in loss of the model, in the same geographical area of the field. If that is the case, I don't understand why the Club hasn't sought assistance to determine the cause of the interference to legal users of the frequency.?? stu k

The club has a right to do whatever it want to do, subject to a majority decision, however, I see no justification for this whatsoever. 35 meg was always safe, its main weakness being operator error, the risk of someone switching on another TX on the same frequency.- a risk easily managed. 35 meg is now much safer - simply because there are far fewer users.  At shows there was always the risk of deliberate sabotage by some sicko, made much more likely with the advent of synth TX frequencies, however, most club fields are way out away from inhabited areas, risk from that source are microscopic. I have a vested interest because I have decided that 35meg is fine, better than ever and there is no reason for me to make the change.  I hope that the decision is overturned.  stu k

When the idea of FPV first came along, I thought that this sort of flying would be where it would go, formation flying, air to air vid etc, rather that the 'fly it miles away' type of flying which seem to cause all the controversy. This is a great bit of film which demonstrates how it can be done. Impressive! stu k

Nothing wrong with any of your ideas Glenn, , I thin k that you will be pleased with the final result.  Keep adding a few pics as you go along! stu k PS as an after though, I was never very happy with the shape of the front turret, it doesn't look right at all, you might want to consider a remake.  I made the front glass 'cowl' demountable. It is held in place with a strong elastic attached to the wing former. It makes a good hatch to load in the batteries Edited By stu knowles on 20/10/2011 18:42:01

I have the Priory Lanc, built pretty much as per plans except with four brushless motors, paired inners and outers, running from two 1300 3s lipos. Covering is brown paper and pva and it carries no ballast. Flight times exceed 10 mins without any bother. I left some of the sheeting off the bottom of the nacelles to keep the speed controllers cool  Perhaps the only thing I would change would be to fit a rudder to tidy up the turns, it seems to have adverse yaw in right turns,, although could this be a thrust line issue?? All the motor are mounted square, no out or down thrust. Mine flies on 35meg, using the flight batteries for power, not had any issues with control at all. Three of the SCs have one wire removed to disable the BEC facility. The RX is powered by one of the inner motor SCs. The batteries get pretty warm if flown at speed but with good throttle management they don't get too stressed at all. I don't fly the batteries to their limits of capacity. touch wood, all has worked well so far.  I think that it looks right in the air, but to be fair, it was only ever designed to be 'stand off and squint' scale, so I'm not sure that fitting retracts is that good an idea in this model. The TN 72" Lanc would be a better proposition in that respect.  Stu k   Edited By stu knowles on 19/10/2011 10:35:09

OS 50 two stroke, Flair in cowl silencer, large prop. 2.1 ./ 6v batt in the tank bay.  Quiet, no cowl extension, no lead  One of my fave aeroplanes, try also with the Flair vintage floats . stu k

I built my priory Lanc last year and it flies well. I have 4 brushless with 4 x SC coming back to two 3s Lipo, paired inner and outer. Only one ESC is used to power the RX. I usually fly with either a 1000 ma/hr plus a 1300 or 1300 and a 2200. the larger battery bveing on the inners which also power the RX. Everything works fine.   If I were to build another, I would incorporate a rudder, just to tidy up the look of the flight, at low speed the ailerons aren't that effective, I think that it would be improved with rudder control but to be fair, its OK as is.   Mine is covered with brown paper using PVA, The nose section is held on by internal bands and is pulled aside to load the batteries. otherwise. it's built as per the instructions included.   At the moment, I don't have a pic to post but I'll try to get on over the next few days.   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

There is also a guy going by the name of e-flite ray from Wales who has built a scale Sunderland (90inch) and a Dauntless (around 70 inch) mainly from Depron.   Just at the moment I don't have a link but a search will surely find him.#   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

@import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css); In matter of this nature snap decisions are best avoided even if richly deserved.   Putting the issue before the committee, inviting the 'offender' to be present, with 'friend' to advise and offering a right of appeal (even if the appeal is to the same committee) all result in a process which demonstrates fairness and one which is very difficult for anyone to challenge later.   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);Edited By stu knowles on 22/08/2011 14:24:19

When you say 'useless' what exactly do you mean. Do they match the part shown on the plan??   I have often wondered how laser cut kits are made from paper plans (rather than CAD drawn plans) A simple scan must bring lots of opportunities for error.   stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Does anyone know where a plan or info about the design details of these 'Flying Witches' could be found??   Often thought that i'd like to try one but frankly, wouldn't know where to start.   thanks, stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

If I have had an ARTF, (very few ), then I have generally refinished them to make them a bit more of an individual model. To be honest though, I have a reasonable fleet in the hanger and so long as I have something to fly, I think it unlikely that another ARTF will get in there. i have come to think that the build quality is pretty poor and that they (in general) are not a very good deal. They always look fantastic but rarely last long before starting to fall apart.   By and large, Plan builds for me stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Hi Mate, Yes mine was a version one of this model. I can't remember off hand but you will need as much as you can sensibly get in there.   Mine legs also stood slightly proud of the wing under surface, annoying when first found but invisible in the air. cheers, stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);

Which ever you use, you will need to tilt them forwards from the 'stock' wing mount. If you fly off tarmac you may get away with it at the expense of chipped props, On grass it was near impossible to accelerate from rest without it tipping forward onto the prop.   I used the retracts as supplied by YT. The units themselves were OK, the fill valve and actuating valve less so.   I have no experience of the electric retracts so couldn't advise.   The flying weight of this model is well up there so do go for something robust and well able to bear the weight.   All said , this model looks good and flys well. Mine is in for a refurb and new paint scheme. I also want to take out the 91FX (two stroke glow) and replace it with a petrol. I am told that some of the 20cc petrols can be fitted.   Post some pics of yours. stu k  

  By any chance, are you related to Reginald Molehusband who was a well known TV personality and motoring guru ?? I am a fan of your films and would love to be the owner of a signed photograph......... or item of clothing............   As an aside, what are you using to produce the flat finish on the Clearcoat?? If I try to flat it off with wet&dry the surface always seems quite 'rubbery' and does flat well.   Your in admiration, stu k @import url(http://www.modelflying.co.uk/CuteEditor_Files/Style/SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/CuteEditor_Files/public_forums.css);