Nigel Dell

Glad it was of interest Pat, I will have a look over on RCG as I have not been on there for a longtime now, and George inspired me on some of my designs with his construction articles years ago, I will be interested is what he does with the Doculam. Cheers Nige.

Hi Pat Labelling on these rolls can be confusing, as Doculam is a US product they use feet and inches, the CR confused me at first, not sure where the CR came from but would welcome enlightenment! In fact they use thou for this measurement which is usually down as mil to add further confusion!😳🙄 the 20” is width and 200’ is length of roll as you say the 1” is the core size of the roll, our machines used a 32mm Core, the 1.5 CR (mil) equates to 38micron (mic) most laminating film supplied here is in metric ( which is why I can get confused🥴 thickness being in microns. the film I have that I thought was 48mic is actually 42mic (I went to find a roll) and is a Matt laminate, it is very easy to use and as you say the joins can be hidden well, what I meant to say is it can be sensitive to too much heat, turn the heat up to stretch or form around complex curves but if you are not careful it can drag over sheeted areas and cause creases which basically stick together far too well! I like the 75mic on larger models as it is easier to use, obviously on bigger areas but is not so sensitive to excessive heat and is more stable due to it being heavier weight wise. Cheers   Nige P.S. It might be of interest, but application of this film is designed to be applied through a slowish moving machine through a pair of heated rubber rollers under pressure, they can be turned off so only one side heats up ( causes curling issues unless speed, heat and tension are optimum but mostly we used a two roll machine which did both sides, it was not really manufactured to be applied as we do, so I suggest on flat sheeted areas, to hold plenty of tension and I have used kitchen roll laid over to Iron on to stop dragging the film to good effect.   Edited By Nigel Dell on 22/07/2020 01:24:46

Hi John I am not surprised it seems lighter, dope can defiantly add a lot of weight like all things if used too much🤭 it only has to hold the tissue onto the film, I used to like a glossy finish when I was a kid, can’t remember how many coats I gave them, looked nice but I didn’t know any better! That looks the ideal weight of film, the 48mic is a bit too light and can be difficult to apply, if you want some to try PM me your address I I will send some over. Cheers Nige.

Hi Phil Yes it does set quickly, obviously it it goes on thick it takes longer but I only put it on in roughly 2mm thickness at a time, it did take me a few goes to get the mix right but it is not difficult, I found Poly C worked but just lacked something in the sanding but that could be I needed to experiment more, possibly the emulsion being a little thicker was easier to get the mix right, I also found mixing emulsion to the micro balloons a better way as you don’t need that much, also found the bought lightweight fillers can dry out and not work, I added a little emulsion to these and this works well too!👍🏻

I mix micro balloons, cordial silica or the fairing compound from Bucks composites with emulsion, the trick is not to have it too wet but a nice stiff paste, you can get the match pots in the usual outlets I tend to take some balsa with me to get a near as possible match, Let it dry overnight is preferable but not essential, it sands as easy as the bought fillers but it a little denser and does not crumble away, it feathers out very well, if filming over I tend to sponge on a light coat of basaloc to be belt and braces with it. I have tried mixing with the water based resins and found the emulsion a better option.

As I have used Doculam for both models and it’s intended use, to get the best out of it just do some samples onto balsa structure using different heat settings of your iron, when laminating using the proper laminator the heat range generally was between 130C and 150C but that was on that machine and dependant on lam thickness and area also we had to take into account too much heat would curl the sheet etc. But to get the best out of the adhesive just run a few tests and get the optimum. I use the lightest I have (48mic) on small rubber powered free flight, adds very little to the overall weight and only use 2 thinned coats of dope, a Junior 60 was done with 125mic and although I thought this was a little too much has proved to be very strong in use and much lighter than Solartex and about on par with normal film.

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 30/06/2020 11:28:46: Posted by Nigel Dell on 30/06/2020 09:51:32: Was this known a two Cadillac of the Sky? 🙄😉 Would it have counted as a stretched limo? 😂👍🏻 with a bar!

Was this known a two Cadillac of the Sky? 🙄😉

Posted by RICHARD WILLS on 30/06/2020 09:45:31: In theory , its a good idea to have a spare crew for long flights . Look at the Flying Scotsman with its second crew entering via a tunnel through the tender . But that spare crew would have to have had sleep , not simply reading a comic , to be more refreshed . Now, I dont know about you , but I find it pretty much impossible to sleep in economy . Ok , so a nice drop of single malt whiskey with ice helps , but for a good few hours I need to be lying down . So perhaps North American should have organised a reclining sliding chair , with better sound insulation and black out curtains in the "spare " fuselage , A little shower and toilet facility (perhaps stolen from a caravan ) would have meant that the resting crewman came out fresh as a daisy . Shame about the other bloke.... It just takes a little planning . I cant believe they missed these valuable points. A good interior designer and a Feng shui guru would have had that buttoned up in a jiffy . My goodness , how we've moved on .. Who said they didn’t? 😳. 🤪🤣🤭

Quite right Peter, this is happens when I snatch a couple of minutes on the internet 😳 I was thinking the conversion of the training airframes or at least one I was reading about had been converted to two operational cockpits. 🙄

Both cockpits were fully functioning, as per it’s original design spec.

You have to look at the original design spec for the F82 to see why two pilots, designed to be an escort fighter for the B29’s so a range of 2000+ miles and shared workload. The various versions that came later with the ‘pod’ , the unofficial photo recon etc. some required just one crew member which could allow for the second cockpit to be faired over to reduce drag but I have never understood how that was a good thing in this configuration although I guess it could be trimmed out. The best thing that always made me laugh was the early Models with the RR/Packard Merlins were relegated to trainers for the later Allison 1710 equipped E’s etc, making the trainer capable of a higher ceiling of operation and faster to boot! Because it was quickly superseded by the Jet age they were tried in various different roles and were masters in none, not the fault of the aircraft or crews, but there is always odd example that stands out if you research enough and they were documented but these are fairly thin on the ground, Betty Jo was an example that stands out as a record breaking airframe but everything military was taken out (armament and amour plate) and extra internal fuel tanks fitted plus the 4 external drop tanks but when it came to dropping them only one wanted to leave giving more problems making the whole flight success even more credit.

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 27/06/2020 22:48:45: I've been using M J Hardy's book "The North American Mustang" for my Top Flite Mustang build and he covers the Twin Mustang. He observes that the P82 was the only twin-fuselage version of a single engined wartime Allied military aircraft to go into production in any numbers. The first XP-82-NA was Packard Merlin powered with "handed" airscrews rotating inwards. He does not say whether this resulted in the aircraft not taking off. Hardy states that the fuselage of the P51H had " an extra section 4ft 9in long inserted aft of the radiator fairing and ahead of the tailplane". Hardy notes the outer wings were modified to remove the guns and undercarriage. The main u/c was now repositioned to the wing root pivoting on the main spar and retracting into the centre section. Interestingly, options for use in the fighter bomber or ground attack, even an interceptor, role the starboard cockpit could be removed and replaced by a metal fairing both reducing weight and drag. The interceptor would have had internal fuel and no external stores. Other interesting points were that the twin retracting tail wheels were cable operated from the main wheels, these now being directly in front. The Allison was only installed in the 3rd XP-82 and did not have contra rotating props. As both the USAAF and North American preferred the Merlin this prototype, XP-82A was never completed. The first production version P-82B-NA reverted to the Merlin and 500 were ordered. It was not until the P-82E was ordered that the Allison replaced the Merlin. It was the first time that it had appeared in a production Mustang since the P-51-A and A-36A. It was now "wearing" handed Aeroproducts 4 blade props which also now incorporated feathering. In the Korean war they were in action from the beginning because of their range. They were credited with a Yak 9, Yak 11 and La-7. The now F82 was superseded by jets and was out of service at the end of 1953. A good P82 to model might be the 9th P82B which was flown from Hawaii to New York non stop in 14 hours 31 minutes 50 secs. It was named Betty Jo after the pilot's wife, Lt Col Robert E Thacker. The other pilot was Lt J M Ard. The guns and armour were removed and extra fuel tanks were fitted behind the pilots' seats which, with 4 x 310 gals, gave a total fuel load of 2,215 US gals and a gross weight of 30,000 lb. Thanks for that info Peter, it now makes my scribbling a little more understandable! The point is the ‘H’ Fuz as Ron has said, I think I will get that book👍🏻 It is slowly coming back so once I have everything in front of me it may well get a grey cell working. Talking of Lt. Col. Thacker, I had the great pleasure of meeting him at a Mesa Jet meet in AZ back in around 2007 or so, in his 90’s and flying a F15 Model very well! I had intended to do the F82 as Betty Jo which is the last time I enthused about the project but life got in the way again, hearing the story from the horses mouth as it were was inspiring, the friends I was with started the conversation as the evening before we had a conversation on what was the best project you never got round to doing! Sadly it still is!🙄🤭😂 P.S. Sorry it may have been 2008 in Mesa when Lt.Col. Thacker was 90, I know they said he flies better than most half his age ! Edited By Nigel Dell on 28/06/2020 07:50:06

That’s helped me understand my 36 year old scribbling, in a note book I have a very rough sketch of the Fuz with 57” marked on it, must go with the photos I have. I have got find everything now!

Hi Rich Yeah, somewhere! Have been having a clearout over the last month or so and nowhere near finished yet to give you an idea on how much stuff I am going through! If it was not for Ron’s posting I would have been fine!😳🤪😂 I was happy thinking of the Apache! I have photos of the 82 against the 51 as the engineers explained to me how the extension was achieved but this was 36 years ago! I am sure if I recall the lower Fuz line was continued and the high line was brought down through where the tailplane was on the 51, a line that can be seen in the photos but this is undocumented unless you have very good drawings as you say, I am not sure where mine came from so I need to find them. P.S. The lower fuz line follows the natural  line is what I was trying to say but my drawing is incomplete and just sketched so I was obviously not sure.    Edited By Nigel Dell on 27/06/2020 16:32:19

Hi Ron Yes I knew about the H, I am in model mode at the moment so have dug out my drawings as I can’t remember where I got to with it, it turns out it is too big for me now, for some reason I designed it around 2x Super Tigre G4500’s and around 140”, not sure what I was thinking! 🤭😳🙄🤪😂

I first became interested in the F82 on my first visit to the CAF shows in Texas in 1984, they had the F82 flying then, the day before the first air show day they were testing it and is was acting like an MDS powered model🤭😳😂 My first sight of it in the air was at 50’ off the runway coughing and spluttering and landing again, on talking to the ground crew it had not long come out of a major rebuild and they were having issues! Not powered by RR Merlin derived engines but dedicated Allison engines of opposite rotations, they traced the problem to fuel pressurisation. And it flew well on the next attempt, it is probably one of the most impressive things I have seen fly as it is big and in all black, menacing. I have been looking at doing one for years but never quite got around to it, if I recall the fuselage’s are longer than standard P-51D and I am digging out my drawings to check on that. That would be my choice to do along with the P-51B made into the A-36 Apache, no need for a 4 blade prop as it had a 3 blade. Nice to see WR back on the trail. I will try and dig out my photos of that time, I have flying shots of it but also photos of various examples that were/are in air parks we visited at that time, don’t see one ever, then 4-5 come along!   Edited By Nigel Dell on 27/06/2020 10:26:23

Posted by Ron Gray on 14/05/2020 09:25:33: If I do build the P82 then colours are somewhat limited but Black Knight looks nice although would / could be an orientation issue! Also the fuse would need lengthening (like the P51H) along with the other more obvious mods. Edited By Ron Gray on 14/05/2020 09:26:53 Just seen this thread. Ron, there are a few schemes out there for the F82 that is of interest to us:-

Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 24/06/2020 09:56:23: Posted by Ron Gray on 24/06/2020 09:04:52: Jeti UK Quite a few F3A guys use Jeti equipment both radio gear and ESCs, they don't seem to have problems. Here we go again - 'As for OpenTx, I'm totally put off by all the dopey, ever self-promoting fanboyism over a mere machine' - Yawn! They do, you know, they just can't resist - "Closer to OpenTx except maybe for Multiplex" - MattyB on this thread. Incidentally the founders of OpenTx were greatly influenced by the functionality of the already existing Multiplex OS. Thus Multiplex is not 'similar' to OpenTx, it's the other way around. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 24/06/2020 10:06:10 It would be far more accurate that OpenTx is similar to MPX Mc 4000 programming and not the watered down version used in modern MPX radio’s, I say that as an avid MPX user of 25+ years, Still have two 4000’s and a 3030 along with evo 12 and a Royal SX 16 the Global mixers on the SX (and evo, as this is now running SX software) is just aggravating me, I made the change to Jeti which gives me back the 4000 capability in a 21st century package, as to Jeti being around, they have been around for 25+ years and have built a reputation on good solid, reliable products, they moved into the radio side and in my opinion have excelled in it, there are a few Jeti agents in this country all giving excellent service, the main importer / agent being Jeti UK/ Esoaring Gadgets give the excellent service and stock levels along with the others and all use the products and stand by them. The funniest thing in all of this is that MPX themselves are marketing their new TX which can also be considered as a ‘Fanboy’ radio as it is manufactured by Core, yes they are selling a re badged Core TX with changes to some programming, hopefully not their origin, this is not a dig at the Core TX as it also is a very capable radio, but sadly more of a decline of a once innovative forward thinking company who were at the top of their game, I still enjoy my MPX radios in a way of a comfy pair of slippers but if I want a more complex programming for both gliders and power models I enjoy Jeti far more. I also have OpenTx and like it because it is a modernised 4000 capable OS so all this willy waging concerning TX’s and OS is nonsense, if what you have works for you great, enjoy, some of us like to push a bit more and appreciated technology and experimentation. We are lucky these days that most pockets are catered for in this hobby so most who want it, get it.

Great! Glad it helped, Andy is very helpful👍🏻

Micron Hi Alan Have you tried Micron, I had the same problem and they sell leads, I did get the loose pins and sockets to make my own but god are they fiddly! 😳🙄 but if you are unsure an email is good and you will get it sorted, they are very good to deal with and quick, I can highly recommend them. I have the self same model and am using my 2.4g conversion of an Ace Commander.