Aero120

Glenn, Just a thought, but the real Vulcan was unstable in yaw and had the equilavent of a heli giro to stabilise the tail, so it might be worthwhile to allow the possibility of fitting it to yours. The fin assembley you've shown has no rudder. You might be okay, but could be worth allowing to fit a working (giro controlled) rudder if neccessary.

Glenn, This looks so good. The B2 had all control surfaces working as elevons. The B1 had them split into separate functions. 655 would be a good subject. Its in the classic late Vulcan scheme of light grey belly and camouflaged uppers. It also still exists and as 655 MAPS correctly brag, its the most powerfull working Vulcan in the world! Its the third to last Vulcan ever built and the youngest in existance, although being built in 1964 its not that young, but still four years younger than 558. i've got a complete scheme for it and can email it to you

And the real one:

Here's my version of 655

The wrap around colour scheme isn't the best for orientating a model! 426 is darker than it should be. However if you did want to do 426 it did have the classic scheme with the light grey underside when it was with 617 Squadron. However 426 has the long narrow 201 jetpipes. 655 has the shorter wider 301 jetpipes and is still functional. Its been very well repainted and has retained its stencils. If you wanted a darker underside, you could do any of the301 engined Black Buck planes, 607, 598, 391 etc. A few Vulcans had the RWR fintop box fitted whilst they retained the white underside and full colour roundels. The ecm jammer plates between the engines wouldn't add too much weight, but depending which plane you modelled would dictate where it had one or a pair fitted. The planes that were modded to carry the Blue steel had a pair of these plates. However the later 301 engined Vulcans were configured for the skybolt missile and generally only had an ecm plate on one side. 655 only has one.

Glenn, it does look good. From the mods you've included its a late 70s onwards spec B2 with RWR and TRF. Which engines are you going to "fit", the long narrow jet pipes of the 201 or the shorter wider jet pipes of the later 301 engined Vulcans. Have you decided on a particular machine to finish it as? The real Vulcans are virtually unique and can be recognised without seeing their tail codes due to the various in mods and paint colours and patterns. I can email the stencils etc for you to print an decal paper and I also have several 100% accurate schemes icluding the variations in the camouflage patterns on individual planes. It depends how "scale" you want the finish to be, but so far it looks amazingly accurate so a good scheme would do it justice. Similarly the jammmer plates between the engines on the underside of the wings were fitted in different combinations on different aircraft. Even the rescue stencils on the side on the nose vary from plane to plane, being done in different colours and with stencils different ways round. If you are doing 558 it has many unique features due to its varied career. In particular it no longer has the TFR that your has. It lost it many years ago when it got a high gloss scheme and went ship hunting! Many of the surviving Vulcans have now got inaccurate schemes and missing stencils due to being repainted to keep them from rotting away. However there is a wide range of schemes and finishes available that would be accurate.

Glen,  That Vulcan looks lovely. The shape seems very good. I'm building a GAD one and its my first attempt at Depron / electric. To get the shape of the fuse its a major sanding exercise. If you want any help / advise on colour schemes let me know. I've got plenty of Vulcan stencil / markings as Paint Shop Pro graphics that can be printed as decals. I made them as part of some work I've done for a commercial MSFS Vulcan project.

Tim, Its gone U/s due to a port main undercarriage fault so its not displaying anywhere this weekend.

Ash, As Eric says, take a look at something full size for general layout. The Westland Lysander is another design along the same lines.   I'd recommend copying the basic design proportion of the the Lysander  or the planes listed by Eric  and see what fits you needs/likes best. Don't keep scale control surfaces though and as Bravedan says, allow room to play with the C of G to get the best out of it. Might be worth doing a prototype first to test the C of G and dihedral so that the rudder gives some roll control. Alternatively build it in modules so you can change engines complete with noses, wings, air ducts and tails etc like the BAC lightning propotype

I haver a low wing Travelair with flapperons and there seems to be no thrust vectoring effect with the flaps down and the full length flapperons rob aileron authority and make it a bit prone to a tip stalling except when just dropped a few degrees.

Ash,  It has to be high wing so the majority of the prop blast goes below the wing and can be diverted downwards by the flaps. If you use a low wing, the flaps have little effect on the airflow over the top of the wing. Plus you need the pendulum stablity of a high wing in slow flight to control roll. I'd recommend starting with a proven trainer design, put the biggest engine in that you can and shorten the nose a bit if possible to keep the balance point, then fit flaps on the inboard section of the wing only, to avoid tip stalls and enlarge the tail control surfaces. Make it a tail dragger with chunky wheels and main undercarriage to take vertical landings and its nearly a Storch! I think wing fences in line with the outer edge of the flaps would help duct the air onto the flaps. I only went as far as fins on the flaps themsleves. These worked well though

Ash,  Just to propose an alternate design concept. Some years ago I "accidentally" built a great VTOL plane. It was a Precendent Hiboy that I'd modified to carry a camera and I fitted with large flaps. On full flap and full throttle the plane would climb vertically and the elevator could be used to adjust forward speed and the rudder would control roll / yaw. The plane was only being kept aloft by prop wash so the ailerons had no effect. The planes natural stabilty helped too. I fitted finlets to the out edges of the flaps and it worked even better as when the flaps when drooped to about 80 degrees, they deflected most of the prop thrust downwards, and created a load of drag to counter the forwards thrust that remained. The remaining propwash over the tail was enough to allow the rudder and evelators to have some effect. The result was like a basic version of a Bae harrier and it would hover and even fly backwards with a head wind. Landing approaches could be vertical too but a final roll out / flare was neccessary. This worked very well, it cost next to nothing and was able to operate from small clearings to photograph specific objects. Your proposed design is more interesting, but both the V22 Osprey and the upcoming Joint strike fighter  that uses lift engines are very complex and have / are taking ages to develop. Hover stability is a major issue and the complexity of the systems to achieve this. More rotors means more things to co ordinate and to go wrong. Hence why there are so few multi rotor designs in both the model and real world. I would recommend that you fit some form of auto stabilisation in the form of a couple of giros to control roll and pitch so you only have yaw and vertical speed to think about. If your model is carbon fibre and foam and hence very light it will have very little static inertia and will be upset by the slightest draft. When hovering you will need some sort of fan or air blast to control yaw and react to the change in torque from the speed variation in the lift motors, Ideally you might need a giro to control this too.  Most Ic model engines create far more thrust relatively than their full size equivalents hence why a basic trainer flies more like a jet fighter than the Cessna 150 that it resembles so you could use a conventional IC engine / prop and duct the thrust through the fuselage / wings to give hover control.  Hope this helps

Trees? that's nothing! We have an entire headgerow that can move and stay infront of a plane on landing approach so when you think its its safe to sink a bit lower, the hedge is still just infront of the plane!

Thanks Rick, I have fague memories of undercarriage snapping and others bending as you say as the tempering had gone astray.

Has any one had any experience annealling piano wire to soften it to work on, then re tempering to an appropiate hardness? Many moons ago I was taught how to do this, but I can't rememeber the details of what temperatures/colours to heat to etc. However I can all too vividly remember the shower of sparks and pain when a home made piano wire undercarriage spring I was winding slipped out of my pliers and took my thumb nail with it! Never tried it again for years, but now I want to make a better U/C for my H9 Mustang that will fit into the bays when retracted. Daren't try working the stiff wire again, so want to soften it first! Anyone got any advice?

I can and have rotated the fuel inlet. If anyone wants to try it, then its best to get a spare one first just incase! I asked at the shop and was advised it was possible as long as you are prepared to replace the inlet pipe if it breaks. The pipe is a black plastic 90 degree elbow moulded over a brass tube. the brass tube is a push fit in the carb body, but is knurled at the other end over which the plastic moulded. I was lucky, got hold of the plastic with a large pair of pliers and it just swiveled to the angle I wanted!

Thanks anyway Doug. It does seem to be set in that position and several photos I've seen show it in that position too. I'm reluctant to undo the side plate to investigate as I assume there will be delicate springs and diaphrams and associated witchcraft inside thats best left alone.

Here's pic of the carb

Thanks again for all the advice and information. Does anyone know if it is possible to rotate the black plastic fuel line connector? Mine points sideways and I would like to point it back towards the tank, but it seeems quite solid and I don't want to force it and break it!

Thanks again for the replies. I'm having a go this evening at making some alloy standoffs similar to those in the review pic to move the engine forward 24mm to where it belongs. Is it worth fitting a micro servo to operate the choke?  As regards the throttle spring, the manual definately states to set it to push due to some harmonic effects, but I'm sure a pulled cable is less likely to resonate rather than a pushed one. If a trailer or caravan starts to resonate when being towed you accelerate to pull it out, not brake.

Thanks for your comments Ultymate, Yes it would be a shame to loose the benefits of a cleaner petrol engine by adding  oil into the exhaust!

Hi,  I've not tried it, but would PTFE tape work? Not sure about its melting point but its used by gas engineers to seal threads on gas pipes. I use Unipart RTV silicon sealant and it has the advantage of not producing any vinegar vapour to rot the alloy and steel of the engine. Only used it on two strokes, but a thin bead on the mating surfaces provides a good seal around the exhaust port and bolt holes.

Hi, I just wondered tif there is anyone who can give me a few pointers and general advice. I've flown glow engines for years and just decided to take the plunge into petrol with a 20cc Zenoah in  an Extra 260. I've got the appropiate bungs and tubing and converted the fuel tank, but wondered what peoples views were regarding carb installations and power loss by using or not using the intake trumpet and a straight versus a bent inlet manifold. I want to keep the cowl as neat as possible so I don't want the trumpet sticking out the side. If I take it off, the carb fits just within the cowl but I expect the airflow won't be very good. I'm planing to fit a 90 degree bent inlet manifold and trumpet so the carb and trumpet are full enclosed, however I expect there will be a power loss due to the manifold bend. Has anyone experimented to see how much bends and trumpets affect the power? The carb instructions puzzle me. The Zenoah instructions state the throttle linkage should be set up to push against the return spring, surely it would be better engineering to pull against the spring as that would take any slack out of the linkage? I have also been advised to remove the spring, but surely that would allow the throttle buttlerfly to flutter is there is any slack. It is also specifically stated in the instructions not to remove it. Surely fitting the throttle linkage to the existing drilled plate must be better than sticking on an additional arm as the instructions state. I presume the large idle speed screw can be removed and the Throttle servo used to set the idle speed and allow throttle cut.  I would also like to fit a smoke system and wondered if anyone could recommend a system and does the diesel tank need new bungs etc? Does Agricultural diesel contain enough pigment to give red smoke? I would appreciate any advise or comments

Thanks Kelvin. Maybe I should rename the pilot. She was Sally the slapper/ Mustang Sally, but Blondie could be more appropriate now.  Any news on your exhaust?

Finally got a proper video of the Mustang done http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUGNkA0ArXA