DALE BOSTON

Gary, That is certainly an interesting analysis but it overlooks the possibility (or probability in my view) that someone simply made a mistake in the instructions. I suspect one range is what the designer intended and the other range is the result of a typo. The question is which is which. It would be good to get some input from the designer, or from Traplet.

Hi Kevin, Having the C of G positioned so that the plane is a little nose heavy for the first flight sounds like a smart way to go. However, what i was hoping to get your thoughts on was whether you were planning to go on the nose heavy side of the 100 mm to 115 mm range, or the nose heavy side of the 85 mm to 100 mm range. Maybe a little early to worry about that but when you get to that stage would appreciate your thoughts.

Kevin, To make my previous post a little clearer, I should have mentioned that the main spar is 100 mm from the leading edge of the wing. Thus the options range from 85 mm to 100 mm and from 100 mm to 115 mm from the leading edge of the wing. A little confusing! I will be very interested in what you decide. Dale

Kevin, I wondered if you have given any thought to the position of the CG yet? The instructions suggest two options: First, in item 63, it says "The model should balance at the main spar, or a maximum of 15 mm forward of it" Second, in the table of recommended throws etc, it says "Centre of Gravity on the main wing spar (100 to 115 mm from the leading edge)" Which option do you plan to go with?! Dale

Kev, Oops, sorry! Of course I mean one 6 in x 48 in and one 4 in x 48 in sheet as the ideal, not two 4 in and one 3 in. Always assuming 6 in x 48 in sheet is available to you. Dale

Kev, Regarding your question about sheet size for wing skins, I think it is always best to mimnimise the number of glued joints. So, in this case, the ideal would be to use two 4 in x 48 in sheets and one 3 in x 48 in sheet. Having said that however, 48 in long sheet is not always easily sourced and I had to make my skins from 3 in x 36 in sheet. This meant that each length had to include a scarf joint to make up the 45 in required. Not difficult but it does take a bit of care. The trick, if you can call it that, is to ensure that all the longitudinal joints are final trimmed against a straight edge so that they fit perfectly before gluing. And that the completed wing skin is finish sanded before it is glued to the ribs. Dale

Many thanks Kev. I'll try to get in touch with him when I get back from my current trip. Dale

I have been trying to get in touch with Steve Holland to determine where the C of G should be located for the Farmhand 90. So far without success. I wonder if anyone else out there has come across the same problem. On Page 10 of the Construction Guide, he says the "model should balance at the main spar, or a maximum of 15 mm forward of it." However on Page 11 of the same guide, the table indicates that "Centre of gravity on the main spar (100 - 115 mm from leading edge.)" Given that the main wing spar is 100 mm back from the leading edge, the Page 10 location is 85 - 100 mm back from the leading edge, and the Page 11 location is 100 - 115 mm back from the leading edge. Does anyone know which of the two is correct?

Kev, Good to see you building again. I can strongly endorse the use of self tapping screws to secure the undercart so long as they are a decent size. I used five 3/4 inch No 10 screws. This turned out to be quite adequate, even for some very poor landings. For what could be described as my absolute worst landing (when the plane spun in vertically from 100 ft!), the undercart ripped off leaving the centre box that ties together the fuse, the wings, the engine and the undercart essentially intact. A strong connection here would have taken out part of the fuselage making the repair much more difficult. I don't have too many good things to say about the kit, or the DVD, but the structural design of that front box, the way it ties together all the major components, is quite brilliant. The disaster I mentioned above turned out to be repairable because the engine box collapsed within the fuselage structure absorbing most of the energy of the crash without much random damage. The repair work was to retract the engine and the engine box about one inch to it's original position and to rebuild former F1 in situ. And to tidy things up a bit, make a new cowling, and reattach the undercart. A very simple repair compared to the write off I assumed after watching the crash. Too bad I neglected to take any photographs before and after the repair. This reminds me of the most serious criticism I have of this whole project which is the lack of a full scale drawing of the plane. What were they thinking when they omitted that from the kit? There were so many times during construction, and during the repair, when Steve's ears must have been burning. I hope he isn't offended by bad language! Dale

So Kevin, what happened in the last year? I have just completed a Farmhand 90 so was very interested in your comments as your build progressed in 2010. I had the same issues with Traplet quality control that you did.  What I would really like to know is how the rest of your build went and whether the completed model has been in the air yet. Mine has but the initial test flight was less than inspirational.  I would particularly like to hear what weight your model came out at. Indeed any and all more news would be most welcome.  Dale