Jump to content

brokenenglish

Members
  • Posts

    710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by brokenenglish

  1. Peter, Surely that means vintage semi-kits and plan projects. If it were intended to mean any semi-kit and plan build, it wouldn't be in the vintage section.
  2. I've just read through this thread. Very interesting, but I don't see anything vintage. Strange to find it in the "Vintage" section.
  3. There were several versions of the ST 56 (plain bearing and ball-bearing), and the same engines also available in control-line versions (without the RC carburettor). The two engine tests I linked are both for the same engine, which is by far the most common version. Compare your engine with the drawings and photos in the tests, and if you find any significant differences we can discuss them here. I think I have an original ST 56 instruction leaflet, but I haven't got time to look right now, and it wouldn't tell you anything more than the tests. Here's a photo of mine. Same engine, but a later version with an improved carburettor.
  4. Here are two ST 56 engine tests. Pick the one that corresponds to your engine: **LINK** **LINK** Note that the original muffler was strap-on. Most engines were twin ball-race but there was an earlier plain bearing version. A great "workhorse" engine, similar to a Merco 61.   Edited By brokenenglish on 30/01/2021 19:35:52 Edited By brokenenglish on 30/01/2021 19:37:36 Edited By brokenenglish on 30/01/2021 19:38:59
  5. Four French kids. I was at this gig and they were superb! Some great guitar solos. They played Rockpalast last May. **LINK**   Edited By brokenenglish on 26/01/2021 08:43:25
  6. Posted by alan p on 25/01/2021 18:57:10: For the oldies extra bonus "WAKING UP IN THE MORNING" That's almost one of my favourite quotes (Groucho Marx). "At my age, when you wake up in the morning, it's a surprise already!!!"
  7. David, I've been flying an Irvine 53 in an ARTF Acrowot and it's perfect. You need very minor surgery to accommodate the silencer, but you have more than enough power. I'm just using cheap HK servos (also in a lot of other planes) and I've never had a problem.
  8. Posted by John Wagg on 13/01/2021 21:39:58: Sorry about the thread drift but is there an advantage of the diamond configuration or is it just to be different. ?? Yes. In rubber model competitions, models are often being timed towards the end of their flights, fairly low over the horizon and some distance away. The diamond configuration gives a greater side area for visibility. It's not worth going into a debate on all this, but that's what was considered at the time (forties to seventies). Another practical point is that rubber models always need downthrust and they are generally trimmed with right sidethrust as well. The diamond configuration makes it easier to get down and right thrust at the same time.
  9. Yes, I built a lot of diamond fuselages in my Open Rubber days (sixties). A diamond fuselage for a rubber model is built as a basic square fuselage, and is simply turned through 45° before the wing, tail and fin mountings are arranged. The Mentor is a good model, although I always found that carving two identical folding prop blades is easier than trying to perfectly balance a single-blade folder, which I was never able to do to my own satisfaction. So personally I would make the prop as a DBF (double bladed folder). Edit: I've just looked at the Mentor plan (I've never built one). The wing mounting pylon and prop hub are very complex compared with the simpler arrangements normally used on competition open rubber models. Edited By brokenenglish on 13/01/2021 18:28:59
  10. Posted by Piers Bowlan on 12/01/2021 11:42:59: or the Rubber powered Invader. Piers, you'll look a long time for a rubber powered Invader... Check your link. and, unfortunately, I think Ben Buckle production is currently unavailable. Edited By brokenenglish on 12/01/2021 12:04:36
  11. An anecdote to amuse you gentlemen (hopefully!). Last Spring, just before the lockdown, I went for a quiet flying session, on my own, in a field close to home (10 min. walk). I didn't fly well, my circuits weren't very accurate, my landings were a bit untidy and, after an hour or two I returned home thinking that maybe I'm just getting old (81) and maybe I should limit my flying to gentle vintage planes... But at least I hadn't broken anything and the model went home intact... It wasn't until I got to the "putting things away and tidying up" phase, at home, that I realised that I'd been through an entire flying session wearing my reading glasses... Edited By brokenenglish on 11/01/2021 06:55:46 Edited By brokenenglish on 11/01/2021 06:57:19
  12. Posted by Rich Griff on 03/01/2021 15:04:27: Barton web site? And free flight web site ? Please could you provide the addresses please so I can have a look see. I seem to spend hours going in circles on the internet. Rich, I obviously don't know how you go about things, but I just typed "Barton control line" in Google and I got the site immediately.
  13. This idea isn't new. Balsa fuel tanks weren't rare on small CL models in the fifties. Just using plenty of dope and balsa cement works OK for a half-cc diesel. The real problem is handling, attaching and removing fuel tubing, etc. The Aeromodeller article published with the "T-Tray" control liner plan (article available on Outerzone) gives detailed instructions, which are similar to the above, but limited to diesel fuel because of the lack of modern adhesives/finishes.
  14. The FF and CL enthusiasts mostly have their own Web sites. If you're looking for RC modellers that occasionally dabble in a bit of nostalgia, you'll find that on here, but if you're looking for serious CL fliers, it has to be the Barton Web site.
  15. It's always better to leave a little unused, to provide a check that the adhesive has hardened properly, and to know exactly when it's sufficiently hardened, so that you can continue working.
  16. For Alan G., Ha ha, that's what I suspected! Note that the commonly seen video of the Colonel's electric RQ only shows a hand launch that looks like it didn't get away, otherwise the video would have been continued. I won't bother with the various A/M RQ reports over the years, they've been posted loads of times, both on here and on other forums. However, some of you may not have seen this video. From 26 seconds there is superb footage of Peter Cock flying his prototype modified RQ, with an ED 2.49cc side-port diesel. The look on his face when the thing is successfully flying around is priceless.
  17. Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 27/12/2020 19:03:19: Considering Col. Taplin used an electric powered Radio Queen to cross the English Channel in 1957 I'm sure nobody will think you new fangled if you use electric power around 65 years later. Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 27/12/2020 19:04:25 Alan, I didn't know that Col. Taplin crossed the channel with electric power in '57. Have you got any references or other info (e.g. A/M report). That would be most interesting.
  18. Apologies Paul, you're perfectly correct. As you will gather, I like Eta 29s. I have at least one of every mark, except that I haven't got a Mk IV, which yours obviously is. You'll find a full review and test of the Mk IV on the excellent Sceptre Web site. I remember when that test was first published (December '56). I was at school and we were all very impressed! **LINK**
  19. Paul, your "real" Eta is probably a very nice engine, but I think it's a mixture of parts from other engines. I think the front end is from a Mk VI, whereas the crankcase is a Mk III.
  20. Exactly. Put simply, that means go back to glow, but using an OS G5 will allow you to still consider that you're flying petrol!
  21. I don't think you'll find any significant difference. Ben's plans are always simply the original plan, with minimum RC mods. If an original full-size plan was available, he just photocopied it and, if there was no full size plan, Ben redrew it exactly as per the original. Also, from memory, I think there are a couple of LRB drawings on Outerzone, including the "Uncle Willie's" plan, which is probably the best drawing. AFAIK, all the available drawings remain faithful to the original, I don't think anyone has "redesigned" anything.
  22. David, respectfully, IMO your power estimations are way too much! The BB Fokker D8 is Earl Stahl's design (early forties). The original weighed 28 oz all up and was powered by a 1940 Ohlsson 23 turning a 12" prop. (I'm looking at the original magazine article as I type this). The plane is very lightly constructed and an OS 20 or 26 FS would be just about perfect. Assuming that you're using modern lightweight RC, then your RC hardware will probably be lighter, or at least no heavier, than the spark ignition system used in the original plane. Obviously, the plane needs to be built very light at the rear, so do exactly that and stop thinking that a load of nose ballast is unavoidable. That's not true. You need to forget "RC sport" culture a bit. The rear end needs to be built like a free flight model if you want to keep the model light and fly slowly. It won't be an all-weather flier but you'll have a great plane for calm evenings.
  23. Just a thought. There are two excellent Avro Avian biplane plans on Outerzone. If you print either of these plans at the size (wingspan) that you are building, then things like undercarriage leg patterns, etc. should be the same. Just tile printing (only the plan zone required) on a home PC would be perfectly OK. Edited By brokenenglish on 06/12/2020 08:15:48
  24. Posted by paul timms on 03/12/2020 06:07:06: How are all the ETA collecters going with all that is going on in the world. Stay safe Yours Paul Timms Mine are all OK.
×
×
  • Create New...