brokenenglish

About 5 years ago, I urgently needed a fuel pump. As they give excellent service, I purchased a cheap HK hand pump from HK Europe. At least 5 years later, the pump is still working perfectly. If anything were to go wrong, I would buy another.

Posted by Keith Miles 2 on 07/06/2020 16:06:29: I could equally take issue with your specific criticisms of the Wot4 but I will leave that to others, should they feel thus inclined. Shame, you're advocating "exchanging views and experiences", not backing out of any discussion... Oh, and in case you missed it, I did say that I have never owned a Wot4 Foam-e and have never, therefore, offered any opinion on it. I didn't miss it. It's one of the reasons that I considered your negative comparison of the Riot with a totally different type of plane to be irrelevant and subjective.

OK - Enough. Please stop this ridiculous Riot knocking. The early posts in this thread were pitiful with irrelevant and subjective "reasoning", to an extent that I considered it wasn't worth answering. At the time, I had simultaneously assembled (and subsequently flown) a Riot and a Wot 4 foamie. IMO, the Riot is very superior in every area, with the exception of the wheel axles(!). Just extract both planes from their boxes simultaneously, and compare them, part by part. The Wot 4 is extremely flimsy in relation to the Riot, particularly the tail surfaces and the area around the motor mount. The front end of the Wot 4 is very weak indeed and any "one pointer", even in soft grassy ground, will cost you the model. A couple of other points: Your initial comparison was with an IC Wot 4 artf which, as you say, is a very nice plane BUT, I don't believe that you can have flown it for any length of time without replacing the ridiculous skinny elevator clevis, a very flimsy piece of plastic operated by a huge broomstick pushrod. You would have hammered the Riot for such a defect... Secondly, you weren't comparing the "Riot" with anything. You were comparing an excellent electric foamie with an equally excellent IC powered built-up model, and the differences between these two types of plane were considered to be defects in the Riot... You also criticised the Riot on the basis of your own "principles" of power loading, etc. which are clearly either wrong or being misapplied. My own Riot, and others, fly superbly as supplied, with the standard power train and prop. Now consider the Wot 4 foamie. It's obviously an excellent design, but the kit design is very poor. Starting with a new plane, on a smooth tarmac runway, after a dozen or so excellent landings, the u/c mount will be loose and flying will stop until you've epoxied it back in place. Any less than excellent landing, or an excellent landing on a less than perfect surface, will wipe the u/c off. Imagine your ranting if that happened with a Riot. Next, I lost a Wot 4 foamie as a direct result of Ripmax non-quality. I went to great pains to get the CG exactly right. The quoted CG was severely wrong and, at the time, I didn't have enough experience to prevent a crash. After I'd splatted my model beyond repair, Ripmax acknowledged the CG error. One last point, I now have experience with a lot of Wot 4 foamies, because I've had to replace the plane at least 6 or 8 times over the last 8 years. But I only have experience with one Riot, because the first one is still flying, and has never needed any repair whatsoever, after a year of intensive "hack" flying. I really am totally satisfied with it (except for the wheel axles, but I had plenty spare from the crashed Wot 4s!). So please, give us a rest from your Riot knocking harping... Edited By brokenenglish on 07/06/2020 15:20:09 Edited By brokenenglish on 07/06/2020 15:22:40

Thanks for that Pat. I wasn't going to bother to look at an "electric" post, but I'm glad I did. Very well designed. I've downloaded your sketch!

Ernst, as I mentioned before, you're a victim of various people writing "any nonsense" over the years and, as you say, it's continuing today. Anyway, to try to sort you out. The Radio Queen wing span is 82". The channel crossing plane was basically the ED kit model (now the Ben Buckle plan), with modifications for the long range flight. Again, as I mentioned before, these modifications are not properly documented. Concerning the actual flight, and the modifications, you should accept the report in the Aeromodeller December 1954. This gives a lot of details and, as far as I know, is 100% correct (the information and photos were provided by Sid Allen and George Honnest-Redlich, who were the major operators present. This report describes the celluloid fuel tanks in the wings and various other things. Finally, my own advice would be to stop reading any nonsense and to stay with the original report and plan.

Posted by Martin_K on 04/06/2020 14:44:19: Posted by brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:05:57: Finally, something you'll enjoy. I've extracted a short video sequence ...... In confirmation of what Ernst says, YouTube reports that the video is "Private". I cannot play it. I have no YouTube account to sign in with. Oh dear! Humble apologies to all. Martin, I've changed the status from "Private" to "Unlisted". I think it should work now, and it's a great little sequence! If it still doesn't work, Paste this URL in your browser:  https://youtu.be/MPexNpSfuQQ And Thanks for reporting it. I can obviously see it OK. I thought "Private" made it available to anyone that I gave the link to, and I thought that posting in the forum was "giving the link". Just to be sure. Here it is again. Great stuff! Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 15:50:16 Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 15:53:00 Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 15:57:26

I've have/had four VQ models and I'm very pleased with the general quality and flying. The only (fairly minor) problem is this covering... I think it's justified for scale models (e.g. Hurricane), where the printing appears to be a cost-effective way of reproducing camoulage and other markings, etc. The problem, for me, is that the same system is applied to sport models (Stick & Maracana), which would be infinitely better covered in normal film. Another point is that the covering appears to be the reverse of heat-shrink. It goes slack when heated, and retightens when it cools off.

Ernst, first of all, you need to define your reference. Over the years, people everywhere have written many things that are either correct, or partially correct and partially wrong, or totally wrong. If you adopt all such "sources" as a reference, the result can only be confusion. For example, when you say that the channel crossing model had a tail skid, you're right, but when you say that the tail wheel was added later, you're wrong. The original had a tail wheel and I think all the various versions have a tail wheel, except for the channel crossing plane. I didn't know the people involved at the time, but I do remember the channel crossing and I did know Ben Buckle. So first, please define which Radio Queen you want: 1. The original Colonel Taplin's. 2. The ED kit version, which has become the generally accepted reference, thanks to Ben Buckle, or 3. The channel crossing plane. When you've decided which reference you want, then work on that basis and stop observing that there are other versions and minor build differences between individual examples (I think these are what you're calling "discrepancies"!). This just causes confusion. If you choose the ED kit version or Colonel Taplin's original as the reference, there is no problem, as the plans are available. However, if you choose the channel crossing plane, you'll have a problem because, as far as I know, the modifications and changes made were not documented, no plan exists for that particular plane, and you will only have photographs, etc. Plus the fact that you don't need fuel tanks in the wings, etc. Finally, something you'll enjoy. I've extracted a short video sequence from a 1949 Pathé movie, which shows Peter Cock flying the prototype ED kit version, in 1949. The look of happiness and satisfaction on his face, when he realises that he has a successful flight, is pure magic. Note also that this plane flew, and even took off, with a 1948 ED 2.5cc diesel, and the radio gear must have been very heavy... A wonderful piece of video! Have a look: Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:25:16 Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:28:11

Ernst, I'll be back with some more info tomorrow. It's too late now. But the RQ doesn't have a tail skid. It has a tail wheel, mounted fairly forward, about 15 or 20 cm forward of the tailplane.

David, I don't know where you've seen any "debate"... I've never seen any such suggestion. Anyway I checked. I have a close-up photo in front of me and it's very clear that the cross-channel model definitely had the "Vee" centre section, with the wings joined exactly as per the plan. There is no "flat centre section".

Ernst, I don't know what you mean by "discrepancies". To be complete: The original plan was drawn by Colonel Taplin in the late forties. This first plan is easily identified by rounded tips on the fin and tailplane. The original was almost immediately modified (in 1949) for production as an ED kit. This plan is virtually identical to the original Taplin plan, but is identifiable by the squared off tips on the fin and tailplane. This second (ED kit) plan was photocopied by Ben Buckle, who added a simple modern radio installation. The best plan of all (my opinion) is the very slightly updated one drawn by Skystone plans (JJ), in the USA. This is very close to the original versions but with a few sensible and very minor updates (e.g. saddle clamp undercarriage attachment). This plan is available on Outerzone. I have all these plans, and there are no really significant differences, which is why I questioned your term "discrepancies"...

The technical links given are all no doubt valid, but I seriously doubt that a 6" prop will lift 4kg under any conditions. Imagine a 4kg model maintaining a vertical climb on a 6" prop... and I doubt that any "duct" effect will increase the thrust of a 6" prop to 4kg !!!

Posted by spudsy on 01/06/2020 10:43:24: On page 42 of the current issue of rcme, there is a picture of a white and orange free flight model, anyone know what it's called? I think I know all the KK range. You should have posted a scan. The KK Sportster is a little all-sheet beginners model, 18" span. A bit like a beginner's rubber powered chuck glider. Pre-cut and pre-coloured balsa sheet. Sounds unlikely to me (pre-coloured balsa in white???). Concerning other "Sportsters", be advised that a search for "Sportster" on Outerzone gives 60 results... Edited By brokenenglish on 01/06/2020 18:56:23 Edited By brokenenglish on 01/06/2020 19:01:56

The plan and article are here: **LINK**

There are a lot "approximations" in the above post... "The original was a FF model"... OK, in 1946, but the J60 has been "mainly RC" since the fifties (60-odd years!). "high 'decalage' together with the rearward (by rc standards) C of G". Old vintage floaters, and the J60 in particular, don't need an "RC standards" C of G. They fly superbly with the rearward CG. The decalage "problem" stems from the fact that most RC "club" J60s are overweight and overpowered. i.e. the decalage becomes excessive if you fly with far more power than is needed. I've built and flown 4 J60s over the last 50 years, and I'm planning another one for next winter! Sometimes I fly with vintage unthrottled engines and sometimes with a throttle, but the same engine size. The throttle obviously enables allows much longer flights and the model can be flown lower and closer (to be admired!), but I like to give nice old engines some air time as well. Club flying also has an impact. If you fly with others then you all have to fly in more or less the same "general flying" manner. Thus, vintage flying is much better if you either fly with other vintage flyers (vintage meets) or fly on your own. In my case, when I fly my Wot 4 or similar, I fly in the afternoon with everyone else, but when I fly vintage, I'm at the field at dawn, and flying alone. Vintage flying when everything is still calm, around 6am in summer, is a beautiful experience and a throwback from my FF youth... And I actually did exactly that two days ago... After the confinement, it was so good! Apologies for the off-topic! Edited By brokenenglish on 31/05/2020 07:06:49

Posted by Skippers Walker on 30/05/2020 06:30:47: I only intend to fly the J60 in a traditional gentle climb/glide manner with sensible moderate power application. No aerobatics! Chris, I apologise for posting one of my videos, but there's a valid reason! The plane in the video was built exactly as per plan, no downthrust, no sidethrust, no changes whatsoever, and with the intention of flying as you described in your initial post. If you want to fly as you mention, you don't need to change anything! The 'instructions" that you've been given above are what's needed (I think!) to fly the J60 like a modern RC "sport" model (touch & goes", etc.). Is that what you want? It's not the impression I got from your initial statement. Anyway, have a look at the video and, if that's the kind of flying you want, you don't need to change anything! The J60 has been flying for more than 70 years, including several decades of RC flying, without all these suggested changes and, IMO, for traditional vintage flying, you don't need to change anything at all! Vintage flying means letting the plane fly almost on its own. Flying "with authority" needs a different type of model. Personally, I fly my J60 like a J60 and my Wot 4 like a Wot 4. Trying to reverse the roles ruins everything! Apologies again for the video!

Sebby, The problem is easily solved. I've just had to do exactly the same thing for my next winter project. Go to the 1955 plan link that PatMc gave. There you will find the main wing rib. Then if you look at the plan of the centre section, you'll see that there's a little drawing of just the front part of the c/s rib. This has to be grafted onto the front of the main wing rib. Thus, the main wing rib, plus the little front part to be grafted on, plus flat bottoming the entire rib, gives you the 1/4" centre section ribs. Do you have the original Flair instructions leaflet? I no longer have mine but I seem to remember that Dudley Pattison gave a very clear explanation of how to build the wing. Even I got it right...

Posted by Robin Etherton on 17/05/2020 13:40:50: Made me realise that “pva” came with such a variation of properties. I didn't realise that. In fact, I use white "woodworking glue" from the local DIY store. I sometimes wonder whether any advantage could be gained by using modern "aeromodelling" aliphatics, etc., but I've never tried any, except for the Deluxe canopy glue, which is really excellent.

Strange how we all differ. I still use balsa cement for a few jobs, but I always think that the single change that made the greatest improvement to my building was when I stopped using balsa cement and switched to PVA, around 1960. For me, PVA is the certainty of never using too much or too little. Applying plenty and then wiping off the excess afterwards is perfect. The first action in all my builds is to make a little chisel-ended balsa spatula, for wiping the joint angles. I still use balsa cement when I want it to blend with dope afterwards, for example attaching covering to undercamber, or installing little silk or nylon reinforcement patches at dihedral breaks. I only use cyano for installing control surface hinges. It involves too many nozzle clogging and unintentional excess problems.

If you want "guided radio assist", then I would leave the dihedral as per the original FF design. However, those who want to fly with full RC authority (with a KK Eaglet!) and who want RC "Sport" flying will be muttering about dutch roll, etc. and will want to reduce the dihedral as you suggest... Your choice... Edit: I assume that you're aware of the excellent 2x size version that already exists: https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=6798   Edited By brokenenglish on 17/05/2020 08:39:10

Posted by Nigel R on 14/05/2020 14:46:47: not seen Don Fry around for a while, anyone know different? Yes, I thought that as well. I sure hope these gentlemen are well...

I bought a BB Double Diamond kit about a year ago. I haven't finished it yet, but the build is going well, no problems, and the wood quality is superb.

ED, these are uncertain times, please keep us informed.

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 10/05/2020 12:14:09: other than back in the days of single channel when we used electrical terminals to connect the escapement to the rudder operating rod. That's another thing I'm still doing! ... Oh dear!

Hi Martin, I've been using the arrangement suggested by Lucas on all my models, on all control surfaces, for the last 3 or 4 years. The models include a Laser 75 Warbird, an IC Acrowot, four different sizes of Wot 4 (one electric and 3 IC), and various medium size vintage models. I haven't yet had a single problem which leads me to ask: Is your opinion just based on "principle" or have you actually had problems? Please don't be offended, I'm just wondering why you're calling "nasty" something that I quite like...