Chris Freeman 3

Stunning! very nice.

Thanks, I got lucky. My wife and son always laugh at my pictures of Tail surfaces, empty sky and my sons bald spot!

A old mate of mine needed to clear some of his models as he is still building at 84 and has help in flying the aircraft so they are lasting longer. I got his Flair Magnatilla that had not flown for nearly 20 years as the float flying club lost the use of the dam. I replaced the Irvine 53 with an electric set up as I fly from a dam close to the house and do not take a recovery boat with. I fly when the conditions are good.

Just a thought as well is that I am in Johannesburg in South Africa which is 5500 feet above sea level so that could be part of the reasons for better performance with the nitro.

Now this sure is customer care at its best!

They do run on lower nitro fuel but there is a big difference in performance with the higher nitro fuel. I found that the Saito twins are much better on about 15% nitro. I never used to mix my fuel with more than 10% nitro but the Saito 180dp twin is much better on 15%. I

I normally used ST motors that used 5% nitro for the smaller stuff and 0% for the larger motors. I have found that the OS and Saito FS motors need around 15% nitro to run well and even the OS 2 strokes run better on more than 5% nitro. Motors made for the American market had to perform on higher nitro fuels. I recently bought a Sig Bravo with a ST 3000 in it as the owner said he could not get the motor to run reliably and even tried 15% nitro to get it to idle. He was shocked to hear that it was running very well with no nitro and 12% oil. A while back I was given some fuel that a Japanese Aerobatic team had used at a World Championship event and I am not sure what the mix is but I did add some additional oil just to make sure there was enough. My four stokes do perform much better when it is used so it must have a high nitro content. The one thing that nitro does not cure is the setting up of the motor as you do still have to do it right.

The Sarik Lysander is very nice but it is a very serious build, Dennis Bryant was a very good designer but not shy of using lots of parts and wood. The Sarik parts are very good for this design and will be a great project. Jon is correct regarding the required power.

Interesting comments here. I am about to finish a UC plane for my Grandson and have a Black widow 049 to power it. What oil would be best? I was thinking 10% klotz and 10% M with 20% nitro. I know the more nitro the better they run. Started the motor on a 15% oil and Nitro mix last evening and the little blighter makes a noise that takes you back many years!

I am not sure how accurate these details are as I see that the P40 shows as 28 pounds and these kits originally did not have retracts. My son and I built one last year and it was modified for retracts and was glassed and sprayed and is 26 pounds. It is a great flying aircraft.

This is the add, not much info. I hope you can do a headstand!

The Ripley kit was a Zimbabwe Model Products kit, the instructions were very basic. From what I recall they were mainly for the ST 2000 to 2500 size as options were not that many in the 90's when these kits were made. The flew very well if kept light. I recall adds in one of the old mags, I will see if I can find one.

Well done Simon.

Very nice project, I built one in the late 80's from the RCM&E plans and also used HP 40's. It flew very well and was eventually sold. i think that less power than your estimates will be needed as twins are very powerfull. I had a TF DC3 that flew well on only a total of 660 watts and that had a 83inch wingspan and was not light.

Have some videos of the flight. VID-20230222-WA0065.mp4 VID-20230222-WA0066.mp4

Stunning Build Brian, this is a lot of work, I built the BT version. If you thought the balsa costs were high, I have an article of the Avspecs resoration of the real one and they say a hobby shop in Auckland supplied the 410 100mm wide sheets of 12.7 thick balsa!

Byron started this post with pictures of the S6 that was built by our friend many years ago. As the Macchi flew so well and the clubs runways had flooded again it was decided to fly the S6. We did all the required checks on Saturday that included running the engine and adding another 700 grams of lead to the nose to bring the CG to the same postion as the Macchi. Early Sunday morning we went to the flying field and had a long carry to the runways as the mud on the access road made a drive impossible. The wind was straight down the main waterway so we had no excuse not to fly. The Laser was soon running sweetly so it was time to fly. Take off was quite a long run as the but once in the air very little trimming was needed. The Laser was rich but no problems with power and most of the flying was just over 1/2 throttle. After around 5 minutes a landing was called and the approach was steady with a great landing. For those who wonder why fly off a flooded runway and not a dam, it is easier to find the bits if things go wrong!

Looking very good, the changes do look right! I see you also have a petrol lawn mower! Many Modlers complain about electrics for planes but then only use electric garden equipment!

Very well done Timo, Stunning build

This is what I really enjoy about projects like this is not only the aircraft but also the stories around the aircraft.

Very nice John, This model is a lot more complex than it looks. I will watch for updates

I always enjoy a challenge and like trying things that are a little different. I see you are much the same as you! The MB5 will be built and flown on a standard motor and prop and once the airframe is sorted we will then install the counter rotating prop and do the testing then. I have often found that the theory does not always the expected results in practice. Much like a certain make of propeller will give better performance than other makes of the same size. I recently rebuilt a Catalina that we obtained from an estate. it had been completed and attempts made to fly it. I used only the Fiberglass fuselage and did the rest to my own design and was very happy with the way it flies. The Power from the 2 Eflight 46 motors are more than enough power despite the 107 inch wingspan.

The center section is built up with plug in outer panels from foam with veneer sheeting and conventional balsa tail feathers. The original DB DC3 was bid but now with the new extended fuselage it seems a lot bigger.

While I was busy building my DB DC3 my son expressed interest in building a new Dak but converting it to a turbo Dak. The South African Airforce had one that had an unusual color scheme but crashed in bad weather whilst trying to get a medical team to Nelson Mandela. We used the basic DB fuselage but added an additional plug to lengthen the nose and then made new cowls. The big advantage should be less lead for balance.

The rear prop is a pusher prop and the article claims only a slight drop in power with this unit. The props used are 22 x 10 and produce a huge amount of wind! The article claims that their set up dropped from 29 pounds of thrust to 28 pounds so not bad at all.