brokenenglish

Posted by Dwain Dibley. on 20/11/2020 14:55:40: Just a reply for BrokenEnglish, with regard to info re the Scorpion plan. This is written on my scorpion plan. Hopefully it's readable. Gordon Murray was killed in action in 1942. D.D. Yes, those notes were written on the plan by Ben and are common knowledge among the vintage mob. Ben is referring to the original American "Answer" and "Topper" design from 1940 (I think). This had elliptical dihedral, obtained by doping, then supporting the wing at the tips and hanging a weight in the middle, while the dope dried (Yippee!). Note that this "feature" is not retained in the Cambrian kit, which I think uses normal straight dihedral. Thus, most people would consider Albert Hatfull's completely redesigned wing, to give the KK Scorpion, to be a great improvement. The point I was making is that Steve, who runs Outerzone, doesn't publish the Ben Buckle Super Scorpion plan because Colin Buckle is still selling the plan and the kit. However, an Eastern European intellectual decided to invent a Keil Kraft Kits Super Scorpion (which never existed of course) and drew his own plan, which he submitted to SAM US, and this is the plan that is on Outerzone. Cultural nonsense but it's an excellent drawing. The advantage with Ben's original SS plan is that you get all sorts of helpful construction notes on the plan.

Just a remark concerning the above posts. The Super Scorpion plan on Outerzone isn't the Ben Buckle plan. Ben's plan is a 50% enlargement of the original KK Scorpion. The plan on Outerzone has been redrawn, in Slovenia or Slovakia, again based on a 50% enlargement of the KK plan, but with a few minor mods. The result is almost the same as Ben's plan of course. Unfortunately, the draughtsman didn't know that there was never a KK Super Scorpion, so he added a Keil Kraft Kits logo, for "enhanced authenticity" and submitted the plan to SAM USA... No comment. But it's a good plan nevertheless...

David, it depends on the application. There are models with sharp leading edges that fly superbly, it's just that they're not yer average sport radio model.

Posted by kevin b on 26/10/2020 09:44:34: It depends on how electric motors develop in the future and the attitude of "collectors". If you had told a modeller in the early 50's that an ED Bee, or Mills in its box would be worth more than 20 weeks wages in 50 years time they would have told you not to be so stupid. IMO, the question doesn't really concern monetary value or week's wages. I had an ED Bee in the early fifties, and I wanted to keep it, just because it was interesting and great fun, and it's been that way ever since...

Posted by buster prop on 26/10/2020 08:08:24: Here we go again! Yeah, the bottom line is that electric motors just pull planes around the sky. Fine, if that's all you want to do. But i.c. engines are a whole culture and an interesting subject in their own right. Like any other subject, they won't interest everyone, and those varying degrees of interest will be reflected here...

Clearly No! And you haven't even mentioned the fun of playing with old spark ignition engines... The great thing about all this is that you can enjoy all of it. I had great fun with the 1937 Ohlsson in the video, but I also fly diesel, glow and electric. They all have their place. Electric is practical but any culture and interest are non-existant and I feel a bit sorry for those whose idea of aeromodelling is limited to that... Edited By brokenenglish on 26/10/2020 07:46:57

This looks like an appropriate place for my question... I recently crashed on the first take-off of the day, and did visible damage to the Lipo (3S 2200 mAh). The outer plastic is very torn and the actual pack has been bent into an "L" shape. The cells are still intact and I don't think there's any imminent danger. However, the battery is fully charged. Before disposing of the battery, should I discharge it through my charger?

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 06/10/2020 09:53:31: I may of course, just be overthinking this. The irony is that if I'd just ignored the manual and built it stock, stuck in a battery and gormlessly chucked it, it would have flown just fine!!! Exactly!!! It's only a beginner's electric glider. You can even start with just a hand glide into long grass (I did). Get the glide right, and then try gentle power so that it just climbs away. It was designed to be "no problems / dead easy", and it is! Mine is by far my oldest electric foamie (7 years old), and it's never been crashed. My advice would be to stop all this fancy computing, install a 3S 2200 mAh pushed back between the servos, and start gently from there.

Surely the motor mount shown above could be built up as a robust ply cube, maybe even enlarged as necessary, and used as a ballast box. Edited By brokenenglish on 04/10/2020 07:51:25

TWS, My Walrus was my first aileron model, 7 years ago. I still have it and use it whenever I haven't flown for a while, just to "get my hand in". Be advised that a 3S 2200 battery (a Wot 4 foamie or Riot battery) just fits between the servos and gives a CG that's dead right for me. It needs to be pushed back into the fuselage for about half the battery length.

Yes, the OP is undoubtedly right. I've gone through exactly that sequence many times (today even!). The problem is that you only find out by flying the thing, and not many of us dare to risk a first flight with the CG a long way aft of the specified point... My partial "solution" is to make sure that any mods made to achieve the CG position are very temporary and easily reversible. For example, where TRS says he carved away a load of foam, I would have firmly taped-on external ballast, just for a quick flight (less than one minute) to check the trim. I only make any ballast permanent (built in) when the best flight CG is found and, very often, you find that you don't actually need any!

Posted by paul d on 29/09/2020 07:19:06: I had one of those years ago, no ball of fire but ultra reliable, never wore mine out despite hours of use. If it was mine I would stick to 20% castor fuel with 5% nitro. I agree. The real question is, do you want to be sure, or do you want to take a risk, knowing that, if you're wrong, you'll only find out when it's too late... You've got a nice old engine... so run it like a nice old engine.

I wonder why everyone has this obsession to "upgrade". I've used exclusively Spektrum for the last 8 years, mostly DX6i and DX6. Before every flying session, I wall charge the 4 eneloop batteries (only about half an hour because they're never flat from the previous session). After many flying hours and many sessions of 2 to 3 hours continuous flying, I've never seen less than 5V on the Tx display and I've never had the slightest problem, so why "upgrade" anything? OK, I replace the 4 eneloops every couple of years, but I've never seen any sign of weakening. In the light of my (limited) experience, and reading the posts above, the term "upgrade" seems rather academic and optimistic, and in many cases, is just resulting in self-inflicted problems. Am I missing something? Edited By brokenenglish on 17/09/2020 16:53:49

Kevin, smileys and other similar stuff can be entered by combinations of characters. Selecting visually, as we normally do, isn't the only method. You have unintentionally typed the pair of characters that give this smiley (could it be "close quotes / close brackets" for example). Formulate your sentence without that sequence of quotes and brackets, and the problem will go away.

I think the problem is simply telephones. I use a camera for photography and a PC for the Web and, of course, I never have the slightest problem.

Posted by David Davis on 05/09/2020 08:44:13: Was it the same David Parker who designed the "Firebrand?" Yes, and he flew Meteors as part of his "day job".

Jeffrey, I think you're right. A 40" tissue covered vintage glider shouldn't need ultra-strong bands.

I have a friend who is very knowledgeable concerning cars (he's a garage owner and also races), and he uses tubeless tyres, with inner tubes installed, all the time, on his everyday car (Jag), so it can't be bad, just "not usually necessary".

OK Pat. Steve does a great job, but there are many dating errors, simply because people have given Steve wrong information. HJT's early plans (forties) were published through Astral, and I think they are all rubber powered. This Beaufort plan isn't Astral, it's one of the small glow-powered plans that HJT drew during the sixties. There are many examples (Antonov, Anson, Grumman Duck, etc.). So IMO, there is no anomaly "on the plan". It's a problem of plan identification. It's not a forties Astral plan, it's a sixties HJT plan, end of story.

Pat, I don't think your assumption is correct. All HJT's early designs were rubber powered, and I have actually seen a couple fly, although, at the time, as you say, many were probably "static". However, over the latter part of his design "career", HJT designed quite a few power models, usually control-line. You'll no doubt remember his super scale Tiger Moth plan (RC or FF), published in Aeromodeller (March 1972), but he also published (all in Aeromodeller) a Lancaster, a Beagle and a Dragon Rapide, all ic powered and all control-line (I think). And maybe others, these are just the ones I remember. Finally, if any of his ic power plans had been "modified" from an earlier rubber model, then no doubt someone would come up with the earlier rubber powered version at some time and, personally, I've never seen one single case of that occurring.

Respectfully, I find it strange that people assemble planes without knowing what engine they can use.

Sincere Thanks to Colin for the Jackdaw story and to Richard for the Evans Jaguar video. Both super interesting posts!

And the dihedral brace from the original plan should obviously still give the correct angle.

It's easy to make this shape of mount, to your own dimensions. I cut and drill 1/8" paxolin sheet.

Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 25/07/2020 02:09:14: Where is Pete Russell, Tuthill/Walker, Bob Palmer, John O'Donnell, Ken Willard, H J Towner, Eric Coasby? Or even John Coasby... I have to say I'm a very satisfied HK Europe customer. Living out in the sticks, I started teaching myself to fly 8 years ago. The results have exceeded my most optimistic hopes, and I don't think I would have made that progress without HK.  Edited By brokenenglish on 03/08/2020 21:52:38 Edited By brokenenglish on 03/08/2020 21:53:27