Rob Ashley

Hi, A bit late I know (and I note Piers Bowlam has mentioned this already - sorry Piers) but definitely worth trying Mike Ridley at http://modelradioworkshop.co.uk/contact-details/ He is very helpful, fast turnaround and also sells lots of other useful stuff. Rob

Tom, Coming along nicely and looks like you are well on the way. Nicely done! Rob

Tom, Here is a link to another thread from someone who built the same model with an electric setup: http://www.modelflying.co.uk/forums/postings.asp?th=48350&p=1 Rob

Tom, I have spent my life doing things people said I can't. If you take your time and seek advice when needed then you should be able to build this model. There is a huge amount of experience on this forum so there will always be someone to help - after all helping others is part of the hobby in my opinion. The model may not turn out as accurate as you would like and it will likely frustrate you, but it will be yours and that my friend is the point (well one of) of building. There are a number of vital things to get right - such as a warp free wings, main wing & tail incidences and correct tail symmetry - but all are achievable if you take your time. Personally I like to start with the wings as they can go together quickly and you can see the results of your labours. Others start with the tailplane and others the fuselage. It doesn't really matter. If the kit has instructions then follow them... I would also guess as this is designed for electric power there is a recommended setup on the box? Best of luck Rob

Cliff, Sorry to hear that the kit is not as well manufactured as perhaps we both thought. I haven't started mine yet as I have had other projects going on. Not likely to start it until back from family break in a couple of weeks. Do you have any photos of yours? As for the spinners - yes they do mean a little extra weight for the motors to turn but very little; and as they are close to the centre line of the motor with equal weight distribution they will not have noticeable impact on the performance of your setup (if any at all). On the plus side they look better and finish the model. Did you need to stick the covering down over the servo hatches?

Sand it off? Probably the safest bet, albeit requires more elbow grease.

Damn it - Cliff managed to get his cheaper!

Janos - I got it from Ebay for £339 about a month ago.

Hey thanks Janos!

Oh yeah - I haven't mentioned this to my wife yet either...

Cliff, I 100% agree with you about the escalation. I thought a 3s setup would be ok and it might well be, however I think I will play it safe as this is my first electric model and go with the manufacturer recommended battery of 4s. I bet we end up doubling the initial cost of the model once it flies. I ordered some props this morning (all standard rotation) so I should have some Watt meter data by next week and will let you know how I get on.

Cliff, As 4Max know infinitely more about E power than me I guess their setup will work well. I note your motors have a kv of 1090 where as mine are slower at 900kv. Are you running on a 3s battery? I am going to use 4s. Static thrust is the amount of thrust you get from the power train without the model moving forward (so no air moving into the prop). This differs to the in-flight (dynamic) thrust due to the airflow moving into the propeller (due to forward motion) and thus increasing prop drag, so dynamic thrust reduces with forward speed. It is hard to measure without a wind tunnel. At max speed the net dynamic thrust equals zero. Static thrust values will give you an idea of the weight each motor setup will pull forward. Jon, Tom, I can't seem to find too many sizes that have a contra rotating prop anyhow. Just thought this electric lark was worth a go to try that method. As it is, I think you are right and 2 x conventional rotating props will not make too much difference to the not really scale model. Failing that there are 3 blade versions from 4 max but I need to do some testing once the props have arrived, before I end up buying a full compliment of props I don't need.

Cliff, Definitely yes to changing the flaps by a deg or two and not the incident angle. I realised quite soon after I sent that post that changing the wing incidence on this model would be quite difficult - so I won't be doing that..... What is the setup from 4max you are using? My setup was based on the IC requirements (2 x 0.25s) and I chatted to my mate in the local model shop who recommended the RIPMAX Quantum motors to get a better performance. Jon and Chris (in this thread) have offered advice to increase the prop diameter as much as possible. I am still looking for props at the mo and am likely to buy a few different ones and test them all, having taken their advice. As for the CG - I am not that far enough forward in the assembly yet so I don't know - sorry. I am changing the UC to a more scale like twin oleo setup before I continue. This will also give me more time to figure out the 'leccy setup. As for the spinners - they may not be a problem as most of the thrust comes from the outer third of the prop (i.e. 1/3 of diameter inboard from the tip). Interestingly some full size manufacturers like to tell you their props are 90% efficient with around 65-80% of that coming from the outer 1/3. Some of my WW1 1/4 scale jobs (with a Zenoah 23cc) only have 1/3 of the prop diameter outboard of the of the cowl and they produce significantly thrust than required.

I guess it also boils down to personal experiences too. I am a Futaba man and have been for the 25 yrs I have been modelling (wow that even makes me feel old). That was my first set and it worked perfectly, as have the other sets in the years since. I did branch out to a JR set, but it would drop signal intermittently sadly resulting the loss of my much loved and very lovely SE5a - I had to put it into a boat to find the problem. I have also tried Frsky receivers but I find them hit and miss and some will not centre the servos very well and have excessive buzzing - putting a Futaba rx back in sorts out the problem. I also have a mate who swears by Spectrum and some others that have had real problems with them causing lost models. I was on the verge if changing my fleet over to Spectrum when it was time for a Tx upgrade, but saw a number of problems friends were having and didn't think it was worth it. I have never owned one myself as I am still happy with Futaba and content to pay the prices for piece of mind, based on my own experiences.

Hi Jon - helpful as always. Not sure why but my first post disappeared, so here I go again. After I sent that last post I realised what I had said. You are quite right and attempting to alter the wing incidence on a model whose wings attach to the side of the fuselage would be quite challenging - so I will take your advice about the flaps and ailerons and make life a little easier.... I think a 4s battery is the better way to go if I am going to try and swing larger props such as the 12x6. And this being my first foray into 'leccy I will try to stay safe. I have been looking at a few prop suppliers but they are not being that helpful, does a pusher prop mean it can be used as a tractor but turning in the opposite direction? I was going to go the whole hog and have contra rotating props (thus utilising all the benefits of electric), but am finding it challenging to find the right item. That, coupled with the fact I don't really know what I am doing!!!

Very true will-o, very true!

Another nice one, Peter. Just finishing off an enlarged version of your Grumpy Tigercub with 2 x OS 32s in it, some sanding and the covering left. I think the Destiny might be next after a couple of scale jobs....but this is a contender too. Best Rob

Yey - Plans in next months RCM&E - yet another model on the 'to do' list... THANKS PETER!

Hi Chaps, Thanks for the replies - all very useful information. I have checked the motor instruction manual and they can take props ranging from 10x5 to 11x9, with the recommended 36 ic equivalent performance interestingly using a 10x8 prop (the model manual states 25 ic). I think I will buy a couple of sets of props starting with 10x8 and then larger diameter, checking with the watt meter and measuring the static trust each time. I do think I will need to then use 4S batteries. I would like some excess power but not to 'overpower' it. John - have no fear I am certainly not a 'cut and glide' type - I tend to fly scale aircraft which, as you know, don't like that method and it's not the correct technique. I might also increase the wing incidence by 1deg to start to help with the lift having read your advice. I guess it is time to order some batteries and props - so far elec is more expensive than IC by far...but I feel I am 'broadening my modelling horizons' to coin a phrase from my father... Thanks again - Rob

Hi Cliff, All, I have bought a BH He111 and it will be my first EP model - gulp!. I have bought 2 motors (Quantum 36 IIs), 2 ESCs (40 Amp) as I followed the setup recommendation on the motor box, but no props yet. I have run through some calculations and figured that at MAUM of 7.7lb I would need 693 Watts at 90 Watts per lb. As there are 2 motors I assume I can divide by 2 to get the single motor wattage??? That gives me 347 Watts. On a 3s battery the max current draw would be 31.5 Amps with 20% spare capacity totalling 39.38 Amps. So the ESCs should be ok with a 3s setup. The Quantum 36 motors are 900 kv and I was thinking of 10x5 props. The model IC setup would be 2 x 0.25s which would run on 9x6 props. I have a watt meter to check the setup once I have all the bits, but wouldn't mind a sanity check before I go and buy props and batteries and make smoke.. Any help would be gratefully received. Best, Rob

It does seem to have become a little off-track. I think irrespective of your personal belief of the did they / didn't they? - the technological advances made to make an attempt on the moon have served mankind well. The advances in computing power, understanding of gyro stabilisation, advanced flight control systems and better materials have all helped (perhaps not directly) shape our lives and hobby into the form it is today. I bow (ok more of a nod) to the engineers and scientists that made this happen along with the vast sums of money poured into the projects for Research and Development. We as the human race are explorers and inventors - our time in space is not over - we just need to make it cheaper, now that sounds like the ARTF market? Just a thought... Rob

Well this is all a bit interesting... I wasn't born but have a son who is convinced that it didn't happen whereas I am 100% confident it did. We have had some interesting conversations over the years over this. I approach it from a more scientific point of view - he watches videos from the conspiracy theorists. The lack of gyro stabilisation on the lander is not a problem. As an active military test pilot I have been privileged to see and fly many platforms that are very unstable - all without crashing. The reason being is that the human is exceptionally good at reading drift and counteracting the problem, especially with training - and this is exactly what append with the Apollo astronauts - they trained. Also a lot of the instability problems are not helped, and in fact augmented by atmospheric conditions - not found on the moon. The physics speaks for itself and as others have mentioned it doesn't take much to counter all of the conspiracy theories. Much harder to fake.

Robert, Sorry for your loss and sadly that sounds like CG. But a MkII?? I guess the power combination was right though? So you have the gear and know the power units are right.....???? Have to admit that I tried my son's SE5 on Sat eve - same issue but didn't get that high so only a broken prop and wing tip scrape - oh and pride of course. Best Rob

Plasterboard is easier on the thumbs but you can pin into MDF too.

I'n not the only one then ?Plasterboard and MDF ? Rob