Stefan Revestam

Just one last post, then I shall be quiet (at least for a while ). I love reading model reviews, just keep let them coming. But one thing I've noticed is that they rarely gives any facts or figures. It might be a cultural issue (I'm under the impression that us Swedes are more fond of figures than most other nationalities), but would it be possible to get some more facts? As an example, in a typical glider review phrases like 'she climbs quite fast to the sky with the xxx motor and a 12x6' are quite common, but to me, as being both a beginner and a number-fanatic, this just raises questions. Does 'quite fast' means she will get to 200m below 30s and thus suitable for F5J and/or ALES? And phrases like 'she glides very well and gives the impression of wanting to stay up forever', does this mean a sink rate above or below, say, 0.3 m/s? OK, neither of the above phrases is a direct quote - I just made them up for the sake of the discussion. But I find both quite typical for any glider review. I think the reviews of motor planes tend to be similair, but there I'm too noob to even notice any lack of numbers. So is it just me who would like to see some more facts and figures, or may there be a general demand? /Stefan

I have read some (far too few) traveling articles in various modeling magazines. Apart from beautiful pictures those articles also contains colourful descriptions of the sites as well as (at least sometimes) useful information regarding how to get there and where to stay. Sometimes the visited site is a local club that's close to a vacation facility so the pilot can have some flying while the wife adds to the tan at the beach, sometimes the trip is for a dedicated destination (I've noticed there are some alpine hotels that advertising themselves to slope flyers during their low-season (the summer)). I would be very glad to see some travel articles in the magazine. The destinations don't have to be overly fancy or expensive (what's next door to one person may be very exotic to me) and may alter between 'an over-day-trip for the Londoner' to 'the hobby-vacation of your life'. Yes, I know I probably can't afford going to most of these places, but it's not forbidden to keep on dreaming, is it? /Stefan   P.S. As a bonus the magazine might find a new advertiser category in the hotels close to the upcoming destinations? Edited By Stefan Revestam on 17/03/2014 14:20:07 Edited By Stefan Revestam on 17/03/2014 14:20:24

I haven't been active for so long as many of the other readers, but in my 5+ years as active model flyer I have only once visited another club. But when I read about club life, especially from other countries, I notice there seems to be quite a large diversity regarding facilities, activities and practice between the clubs. Also there seems to be some diversity between how 'non-club-flying' (I don't find the correct English word. I mean flying outside a regular club-field, for instance on slopes) is allowed between different countries. In our Swedish golf magazine there is an article each issue from one of the clubs in the Swedish golf association - a new club for each issue. The article often contains some club history, always contains a brief guide to the course and sometimes some anecdotes from the course, the members or the club. What about having such a series of articles in RCM&E? I guess most of the readers are from UK so of course most of the visited clubs also should be from there, but an occasional visit to other countries would - at least to me - add some spice to the serie. /Stefan

Posted by Joe Beavis on 13/03/2014 23:34:28: I would be interested in an article about balsa production. I am always impressed by the standard and accuracy of the balsa we buy for what I think is a modest price. So, how about an article about a balsa sawmill? I agree, that would be very, very interesting. And just to add to that: how is it possible to produce 0.4 mm plywood? Each layer must be extremely thin, so how is it cut without breaking? And is the glue thinner on thin plywood than on the thicker sizes, or does the glue/wood ratio differ? As possible follow-up articles: How is a balsa kit produced. I guess there's more to it than just cutting out the wood? How is a balsa ARF produced? Is there any big differences depending on volume or is all ARF:s made 'by hand'? Does the big brand owners own their own production plants, or is it third party producers. If so, does they usually produce for several brands? How is a model designed? And by this I don't mean a study of what CAD-tools the designer use or how he/she calculates the size of the tailplane, but more like the workflow of the complete design process. What role does the marketing department play. How much iteration is used in the process? What sacrifices must be made to increase production capabilities? Is the visual appearance of the box of any importance anymore as so much of the sales is via mail order? /Stefan P.S. Just when I was about to hit the "Add posting"-button I noticed that Ernie allready had proposed an article about manufacturing. But since I'm so slow when writing in English I don't bother to edit my post and just ask for forgivness for double-posting this subject.

Posted by David Pearce 4 on 10/03/2014 19:54:47: With this competition and general flat field flying in mind I have been looking at electric gliders. I have a personal preference for balsa/composite over foam. With two other builds queued up my first needs to be pnp/arf but when I read reviews of non-foam gliders such as Flyfly Firebird and JP Greensleeves they don't get great reviews. So does anyone have a recommendation? If it has to be foam then so be it, I hope to build something later but just need something I can fly asap. Something between £75 and £150 and suitable for an intermediate pilot. Your thoughts? Thanks If you want to avoid foamies you might have a look at R2hobbies.com. The Raptor, PasserX and VGA Advance have all got good user reviews on RcGroups.com (but on the other hand, all planes get good user reviews over there ).

Since I'm the one who brought the subject up I feel obliged to give some comments. I totally agree with BEB and DP4. In our Swedish version we had some rather extensive discussions during the winter concerning the need to make the rules more equal and give everyone the same chanses, but eventually we decided to stick to our simple rules (which, by the way, differs slightly from them proposed here). OK, an overpowered glider has an advantage. And a very light glider have an advantage in light conditions. And some fields are better than others. And some days are better than others. And so on, and so on. But in the end we agreed that we wanted to have as simple rules as possible so there are as easy as possible to have a go for everyone. In our version we only need a stopwatch and a tape measure. We don't even have any procedure for proofing our results. Everyone times themself and measure their own landings. Some use stopwatches. Others, like me, use the timers on the radio. Both my radio-timers starts when I'm engaging the throttle. Timer1 stops when I'm disengaging the throttle, Timer2 keeps rolling until I push a button when I'm landing. Simple as that. In addition some of us also uploads the altimeter graphs, but that's more for the fun and discussions and are never used as proof. I might also add that - as BEB points out - spot landing on time isn't as easy as it sounds, especially if your plane doesn't feature flaps or spoilers. My first year I was quite happy when I landed within walking distance and there was rarely any need to pick up the tape measure... One of the good things with a postal competition is everyone can choose when and where to have a go. If it's good weather for my plane I might get out of the office early and go to the field. Or if it's bad weather on my flying saturday I might prefer to spend the day practising landings instead of try to make a good round. To me, this kind of laid back, friendly competitions have been a path into 'real' competitions and I actually entered my first F5J-competition last September, something I wouldn't have dared if I had not 'competed' in our postal competition Elsegelutmaningen (The Electric Glider Challenge). But that's just me. One of the other contestants wrote on our Swedish forum that he was in just for the fun of it, but said that he had not flown so much in the previous years as he did last year which was his first as participant. By all this ranting I don't say you shouldn't discuss the rules. Of course you should. They could allways be improved and/or altered. But may I suggest that when you suggest an alteration of the rules also discuss what would be enhanced and why this is important. When you have tried it a couple of times, please also share your thoughts of strategy. The current version of the rules allows multiple motor restarts; what's the optimal usage of this in different conditions and with different planes? How do you calculate between optimising landing points versus optimising flight time? When do you give up searching for thermals and begin focus on landing? Etc, etc. There's a whole lot of knowledge worth of sharing for the experienced and a whole lot of learning to do for the rest of us. /Stefan

Yes, the link is here: **LINK** I'm afraid it's only in Swedish but Google Translate does a fairly decent job when translating it (with some exceptions, such as an added negation where it shouldn't be any, and translating "elevator-aileron-motor" as "height warped engine" ) so I think you'll get the overall picture. Another similar competition with slightly different rules could be found here: **LINK** Yet another postal competition could be found here: **LINK** but this one is of a quite different kind. All three of those are for electric gliders, but that's only because it's my main interest and therefor the only ones I know of. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of similar events for other kind of aircrafts. /Stefan

Posted by Peter Miller on 04/03/2014 18:21:47: Posted by Stefan Revestam on 24/02/2014 11:47:11: I admit I haven't read the whole thread so this might have been mentioned allready, but I miss a good instructional article of how to cover my planes. By that I don't mean how to apply the cover material - there's hundreds of articles on this subject in different magazines and websites - but how to do it pretty. /Stefan The article is now with Graham Ashby I feel very honoured. May I dare give another suggestion? How about a "competition special"?   Background I participate in an online electric glider thermal duration competition. The rules are very simple with the focus of encouraging beginners like me to try a (laid back) competition as well as encouraging more experienced pilots to stretch the season. Thus the competition runs from March to October with a winner each month as well as a total winner for the year. To me, this event have made me a better pilot because I now flies more focused and I'm 'forced' to practice things like landings and flat turns. It also 'enhances' the weather because it's always worth going to the field - even if it's cloudy and without thermals I could still practice landings (and heaven knows I need to).   But I'm pretty sure there must be similar competitions for other types of planes. If not - could they be invented? How about flying with a logging altimeter on a i/c-plane and try to follow a predetermined height curve (we are going to try this on a club meeting this year)? Or maybe making five landings in a row where the distance between touchdown and a predetermined spot is measured? Or maybe combine them to make landing approaches following a predetermined height curve and touchdown point (just like fullscale traffic pilots have to)? Or anything else, I'm pretty sure your staff have seen, heard of or could make up a lot of candidates for such competitions. So Such an article could describe both online competitions as well as "compete against yourself". Maybe also a follow up article with unusual but successful club competitions where focus is more on having fun than on having perfect rules. If the competition is made to accept different types of flying 'things' (is 'vehicle' also applicable for airborne things in English?) it's an extra bonus since, at least here in Sweden, most clubs are mixed with planes, gliders and helis. Finally If you find a suitable competition form you might consider hosting it here on the forum. The administration is minimal, the cost of any prices need not be overwhelming (how about a cap or a t-shirt to the winner each month and a subscription to the total winner of the year). The benefit would be increased traffic on the forum as well as an increased interest focused flying.   /Stefan

I admit I haven't read the whole thread so this might have been mentioned allready, but I miss a good instructional article of how to cover my planes. By that I don't mean how to apply the cover material - there's hundreds of articles on this subject in different magazines and websites - but how to do it pretty. I have got to the experience level where I can attache the film to both my wings and fuselage and where the wrinkles aren't too obvious to the far away observer. I have also managed to 'decorate' my planes by having two different colours on the outer and inner wingpanel. But how to do next step? How does the experts make all those beuatiful multicolour lines and areas like in the fuselage side on the Mini Tyro in the first picture in this thread? **LINK** Are there any good short-cuts? My first plane was a HiFly from Precedent (anyone remember that oldie?). The kit contained several meters of tape with coloureds stripes. A strip of tape on the fuselage sides as well as on the wing transformed that plane from a boring white dove to a more thrilling.... well, I wouldn't call the HiFly a hawk, maybe more of a mallard Anyway, that was a simple way for a beginner like me to fast and easy improve the looks of my effort. What products exists today? As well as an article of how to do it I would like to read an article of what to do. I guess there are some patterns that have evolved over time as more pleasing to the eye than others, as well as many patterns that have proved to be quite the opposit. Are there patterns or colours that suits a biplane better than a cabin sportplane? Are there any big no-no's (like having the same colour/pattern on both sides of the wing for a delta-plane)? Where do all the experienced builders find their inspiration? Another twist on the same theme might be an article of how to improve the looks of an ARF. What can easily be done with paint, decals, fittings, etc? /Stefan

Posted by Bruce Austin on 18/02/2014 16:13:52: I live in Red Kite countryside, and when flying my Bixler 2 ( I've had glides of 4 minutes with that, and I'm just learning about trimming) I really enjoy when the Kites come around and just hang with the plane. To fly with the birds sounds lovely. I've just been lucky to do it once, and that was how I found my second thermal ever (we all remember the first ones, don't we?). Posted by Bruce Austin on 18/02/2014 16:13:52: Just out of curiosity, how did you happen to break your Phoenix? Oh, that was easy enough I had far too much abstinence of flying and went out when the wheather was far too bad for flying a glider. It was late in the afternoon, the air was hazy and the clouds were dark and low so the visiblity was poor, far too poor. But, stupid as I am, I launched anyway. First climb was a cautious one, low angle and maybe 50 meter. A shallow glide to the far side of the field and it's time for a new climb. A little bit steeper. A little bit faster. And all of a sudden the plane vanished into the clouds, which probably began at 60-80m. If I had been a little bit smarter I would just have cut the motor and extended the crow-brake and let the plane land itself (there's a lot of room in that direction) and I would just have a long walk to fetch it, but I panicked and tried to circle it down from the cloud. At least I cut the motor, but that didn't help much. I didn't really caught sight of it again - I just saw something white flash by in my periferal vision and then it was gone. A long and very muddy walk later I found her standing like a fencepost in the farmers field with most of the wings spread around her. The motor is broken. The seam of the fuselage is split open from the nose and several centimeters back. The wings are in many pieces. The plywood servotray is in several pieces. I think all of this is repairable, but I'm not sure it is worth the effort. Now she rests in my shed since other projects has far higher priority. Maybe sometime in the future... Or maybe not, given the low price for a new one. But if I buy a new one it would probably be the 2,6m EVO version to get a bit more wing area. On the other hand, Phoenix 2000 is a very stable plane and handles windy conditions well. A beginner like me have no problem flying her in wind up to 6-8 m/s. (Finding thermals in those conditions is, by the way, a completely different matter...) I guess I have to decide if I want larger wing area for calm conditions or a faster plane for windy conditions. /Stefan

Hi Bruce Yes, I'm using everything stock as per HobbyKing's PnP-version (or rather: I did use it. I crashed it a couple of weeks ago, and given the low price I think I rather buy a new one than trying to mend the broken wreck). The used battery is a 3S1300 which is enough for 3-5 climbs to 200m. I don't recommend any larger LiPo unless you prefer a rather forward CoG. On the other hand, I've read of several people who quite happily flies with 3S2200 and even 3S2500, either the individual planes have different CoG from factory, or the plane is quite forgiving of a forward CoG. With my setup I get a climb rate of 5-6 m/s (approximately 40 seconds to 200m) which is OK for sport flying but a little bit weak for ALES or F5J. I've measured sink rates of 0.9 m/s, which means flight times of just under 5 minutes for each climb in dead air. But please remember I'm not a skilled pilot, so with better tuning and smoother turns I'm pretty sure this could be enhanced. I didn't fit the flaps at the beginning and was quite happy without them. I found it enough to raise the ailerons as 'spoilerons' as a landing aid, and compared to my other glider, which is rudder-elevator-throttle, it really helped. I used to consider every landing which is both within walking distance and smooth enough to keep the plane fit for another launch as a good landing, but with the Phoenix I could mostly land on the mown part of our model field. (OK, the previous sentence may be a little bit exaggerated. With a lot of training I now (mostly) succeeds in landing my RET-glider on the mown part too.) I did however fit the flaps during this winter, but I only got two chances to fly with this configuration, and both occasions was far too windy and turbulent to draw any conclusions from. I didn't fit them out of necessity, it was just for fun and for learning. Nevertheless I'm rather curious if they would have helped me lessen the sink rate. If someone else have any experiences to share, please chime in. All in all, the Phoenix is a nice plane. Easy to fly and with adequate performance for sport flying but - at least in my hands - not good enough for competition. I don't think anyone would call it aerobatic, but it's the first (and only) plane I've managed to (intentionally) fly upside-down, which probably means it is extremely easy to do so. One of the best things with the plane is the nylon:ish fuselage which is nearly indestructible. One of the worst things with the plane is the nylon:ish fuselage which is said to repel any glues used to repair it in case it has broken.... /Stefan

Posted by Bruce Austin on 18/02/2014 10:36:09: I read somewhere that there might be some issues with the folding prop hooking under the edge of the canopy, and then being trapped and not opening when needed??? Hello I don't think that is a very common problem at all. At least it hasn't happened to me despite 100+ starts. On the other hand I have dropped the canopy in flight once, but that was because I had taped a keycam to it, and the tape prevented the canopy to 'click' when fastened. Fortunately the canopy (and camera) was lost at the end of the runway so it was easily retrived. I have heard someone mention that the fit between canopy and fuselage varies between the individuals, so you might want to check that yoy canopy 'clicks' into it's seating, otherwise some use of a needle file may be recommended. Other than that the only modification that is dearly needed is strengthening the rudder, which is a bit weak below the hinge. I used a strip of fiberglass reinforced tape on each side of the rudder, from the bottom and halfway to the top. It's a nice plane which is well worth it's price. It's not a gasbag but it is fairly easy to thermal with it, even for me who consider myself as somewhere between beginner and intermediate as a glider pilot. I have used it as a backup plane and as a learning platform for full-house glider (I normally flies an electrified Fling 2m and have a Whats Up on my building table, but the next plane after that might be a full-house glider). Hope this helps /Stefan