Jon H

The pot calling the kettle black. I was more than happy to assist and was quite happily posting away until you kicked off with your snarky 'throttle moves both ways' comment. So perhaps you should consider the way you speak you people if you do not want the same in return. If it was in jest and i misunderstood then fair enough, but i do not have much tolerance for snarky nonsense. Especially when the engine you have has a pretty dreadful throttle. Ok fair enough, but from my point of view once you have flown a handful of 60 ish inch warbirds you have flown them all. The basics are the same for all of them and the lessons from one easily apply to another. For example the H9 109f is a bit of a porker. It always has been and i do not know why it should end up so heavy and its not really a great yard stick to measure by. Seen in isolation it might look ok and fly alright, but compared to a broader range of similar models it is more of an outlier. Regarding Galaxy, they were at their peak in the days before the internet and their kits faded from the lime light by the time it came along so information will the sparse. I used to fly a galaxy mustang and it was a good model which flew well on a 150 4 stroke. They are old designs and their age shows in many respects but they do generally fly well once all is said and done.

ok clearly you did understand my post at all. You cant say a model is tail heavy just because it needs lead to balance it. You can say its tail heavy without ballast, but its not tail heavy per se. No, it dosent. This is a starting point to guarantee the model is controllable and to cover off inaccurate balancing. It is not set in stone and you can move it and i would imagine that even 110mm would be fine. Not that you need to measure it, just keep removing weight and making adjustments. As a said before, i took over 1lb out of my large hurricane and about half a pound out of my smaller Hurricane. Both fly better for it despite being 'tail heavy' if measured according to the plans. This is a half truth at best. There is a perception that cg is a fixed entity perfectly measured at 95mm in your case and that is where it has to be. This is flat out false as any ic model looses several oz of nose weight over a flight as you burn the fuel off. Generally, this has no appreciable effect on the model and its performance. With this fact in mind we can say there is a cg range where the model is controllable, becoming less so at each end of the range. My suggestion is to have the cg as far aft as stability will allow as you end up with a model which is lighter, handles better on the ground and wont sniff the dirt on taxi.

Which rcv have you got for it? I have been playing with a 120sp and found some interesting things. If you have the same engine let me know and i can give you the info

why does it matter if i ever built one? I have a similar model from another manufacturer and countless other warbirds of varying sizes up to 90 inch. The tldr is that the model you have is a 60 inch and intended for 60 2strokes and 90 4 strokes, and a flying weight of about 9.5lbs. As yours is heavier than that you need to be prepared for it to not be as forgiving as you might hope. That was the point i was trying to make. With that said, i decided to check the spec to see if my memory was not as accurate as i would like. Turns out the model is 66 inch and not 60 as i originally thought, and with that in mind the weight is not quite as much of a concern. Its still very over powered, but at least the prop has a fairly fine pitch. Just keep an eye on the rpm as the limiting speed for master 3 blades is a little low. Not entirely, but after 18 years in the model industry i have had enough of smart alec comments and will be far less diplomatic when responding now i am just a modeller again.

quantify 'tail heavy'. If you are referencing the fact that it needs lead to balance at the marks in the instructions this is not a tail heavy condition and more than likely the model is nose heavy. Many kits come with extremely conservative c/g recommendations and they can usually be shoved back a good long way before the model becomes unstable. The advantages are obvious with less weight carried and a model which will not spend all day sniffing the dirt. The only thing you need to do to keep the model on an even keel is reduce your elevator travel as you move the c/g back. I have mentioned many times that i balanced my DB Hurricane on the plan c/g and have since removed more than 1lb of lead from the nose. My Sea fury too lost a big chunk after test flights, as have countless other sport and scale models i have in the hangar. Ultimately, the recommended c/g is a starter for 10 just to get your safely through the maiden flight. After that it will need to be adjusted, often quite significantly.

Or you could accept that its a sub optimal result and take appropriate precautions. There is even the option to remove some stuff from the model to reduce its weight.

IF the gear need that level of rake the model is balanced far too nose heavy. P51's tend to handle well on the ground and have decent size wheels. It should not be necessary to crank them that far forward.

Ah my 2nd favourite most stupid defence of excessive engine size. In any case, irrespective of the familiarity of the pilot with the throttle stick the model is over weight and over powered. This is rarely a good combination.

yikes.

My warbirds Hurricane is 63 inch and about 9.5lbs. Very fast with a laser 80 fitted. Ground handling is no problem though, and its not for my bigger DB Hurricane either. As i have mentioned before, warbirds have a rep for being unstable so they are balanced nose heavy to guard against such behaviour. The irony is that the excessive nose weight demands large elevator throw to keep the nose out of the dirt when taxiing. This high rate is the actual cause of their instability in the first place and adding the nose weight just made it worse as you now need even more elevator travel. I will always advocate a more rearward c/g and smaller rates on elevator. I also for scale size wheels and, ideally, scale length legs as well to help with ground handling. Some warbird kits come with tiny little wheels and a single snail turd is enough to trip them up.

Cheers Fred, glad to hear they landed safely.

hours mean nothing. model engine bearings almost never wear out, its always rust. In fact an engine run often will easy out last one that is run infrequently.

Then you are doing something wrong. I have never had a set of bearings go that quickly even in my especially vulnerable os FF240. Its 6 years into its set of bearings i think and its still fine. I use no castor, no after run...

castor fuel can get in the bin. times have moved on. for the tank, all glow engines without a pump the top of the tank should align with the middle of the carb to prevent tuning issues. this image is lifted from an os manual and although it shows the tank a smidge higher, it also shows an air space we would never have so i just assume the tank is brimmed and so the fuel level and tank top are the same.

There is a perception that 4 strokes are harder or more complicated to operate than a 2 stroke. This is flat out nonsense and they operate exactly the same way and have almost identical requirements. If you can run an FP series 2 stroke without problems then any modern 4 stroke will not present any issues. My recommendation is always the same. Get the tank in the right place, use the right accessories, tune for peak performance, fly until bored, go home. After run oil is a waste of time when used in the typical modeller way, and its a total faff taking the cowl off, plug out etc. You also risk damaging the plug threads taking it in and out ever session. With a 5% nitro 15% synthetic oil fuel and tuning at peak performance the risk of corrosion is low. Rich running and/or excess nitro will increase the chance of corrosion considerably so always be sure the engine is tuned correctly.

it seems a bit excessive to me but is in line with the max recommended for a paw 29, which is about the same size. I would probably use something smaller like 11x6 for the first bit of running. Once the engine is running well with this lighter load start pushing it a bit harder with 12, and then 13x6. See how the engine handles and responds.

i would go for 15x6

Just to cover this, all paid orders will be sent. Some are delayed while rocker covers are manufactured but they will all go out. I popped in to the factory to collect my P45 and very few orders are still in limbo. The same is true for repairs to the inline engines, it will get done, i just need the part. IT might be possible for customers to do the work, but i will do a few and see if i can come up with a sensible procedure. I also briefed Geoff on how to find all the contact info i had saved, access to the email and modified the website to remove the contact details as the email and phone are now outgoing only. Rocker, M8x1.25 or 5/16x24 unf depending on the age. When it comes to spares things with MSL are not set up yet so there is no point in hounding them. Give it a few months. That's probably it from me for a bit. With my employment sorted its now time to deal with moving house so that should keep me busy for a while.

I dont want to get drawn into this in a big way but i do have some relevant comments to make. Kevin more or less has it sussed. The whole selling the business/licence built etc idea is a fantasy. Half the parts did not have drawings, just ancient programs stored in the machine the part was made on. Loose the machine and the rest is pretty meaningless. The other half of the parts did not have up to date drawings as updates made along the way were never translated into updated drawings for some reason. Even if you did have all of the drawings then what? Do you have the machines available? How many parts do you want to make? 1000off? yea ok maybe, but given historic sales that might take you 10 years to get shot of. Also how do you put the engines together? There is no documentation covering the assembly of the engines as the contents of my brain has not been written down. And what about testing, tech support etc. You are totally on your own and have to figure it out yourself with customers calling you asking for advice. No doubt you could get away with parroting modelling folk lore and telling people what they want to hear, but its not really a winning strategy in my view and will not cure most problems. I also have a dim view of the carb placement whinge as the only reason most cant lower the tank is because they cant be bothered to do the work. There are a few exceptions, but 99% of the time its just laziness and that was so frustrating. I have always managed so i do not see the problem. Anyway to do it properly you need to start from scratch with at least half a million quid to get started for machines, premises etc. You then need staff members costing you at least another half million over 5 years and not expecting to make any money for at least the first 5 years. As i said before, if it was super easy to make money selling model engines everyone would be at it. That isnt to say i dont think it could be done, it could, there is potential, but if i had a million quid sat here i certainly would not be risking it on building engines. The whole Uk cottage industry thing is also our biggest weakness. We have so many great ideas in this country, but this 'man in a shed' mentality usually prevents them from getting anywhere. Unfortunately enthusiasm alone is not enough. Without a real business mentality behind it its never going to get anywhere. On KC's comments about claiming on cards etc, its a non starter. The inline engines were sold as development/prototype items with no warranty. This was made clear to all who bought them, usually in writing. I made it very clear things might go wrong and the engine may be unusable for months at a time. This often fell on deaf ears and more than once i heard a comment to the effect of 'its a laser, they are always perfect'. No, they arent, but this expectation of perfection clouded the vision of many who bought them despite me stating very clearly that it was not a finished product and buying it meant you accepted certain risks. Now, when it has gone wrong some of these people are up in arms. I see it from both sides. Yes, the problem should have been dealt with faster and more efficiently (or not been a problem in the first place), however, buying a development product with no warranty and no track record was a risk you knew about so why are you upset now when its all gone wrong? You were warned, and went ahead anyway. With all that said, the issue will be fixed eventually, and the engines can be used in the meanwhile. To cover Neil's departure, that was a different story as the manufacturing company remained. Had i left and the manufacturing kept going, maybe it would have continued as i am the 4th person to assemble the engines. But, with the manufacturing company closing that was more or less the end of it. Even if i wanted to carry on, i could not have done it. And as i have wanted out for some time, i had no desire to continue anyway even if i had my own company. i have to admit, i do not understand a great deal of the fuss that has surrounded the closure of laser. I for one an delighted to be out of the modelling industry. I knew i was unhappy where i was but had no idea how unhappy until now. I was humbled by the messages of support and thanks i received following the announcement, and am very appreciative, but i also received a more than equal number of people whinging about how unacceptable it was they couldnt get their 20 year old engine serviced any more and it was all my fault. After a week away at my new job reading 'laser' chat on facebook or forums just makes me angry. I cant pinpoint why, i just have an intense hatred of the whole subject, the hobby as a whole, and feel depressed just thinking about it. yet here i am again, sucked back in to a conversation that really has nothing to do with me any more, trying to half defend a company that no longer exists. I shouldnt really have posted here at all really as it just causes me stress i dont need. The best advice i think i can give any of you at this point is to just let it go and never ever accept a job within the modelling industry.

I never was. I can appreciate your concerns, and i share them, but i was just an employee, and i have left the company. The harsh truth is that its not my problem any more and i am within my rights to not give two hoots about it. However, i feel it is rather bad form to just abandon those who tried to support what i was doing with the inline's and that is why i have agreed to do the work once the parts are done as i do not want to leave people stuck if i can avoid it. The reason why i am asking to call a halt to the conversation here is that in the past it would have been an avenue to communicate with the company through me. That link is now broken as it is no longer my job to chase parts and have long draw out customer service type conversations on forums, yet here i am at 9pm on a Tuesday evening. In any case, posting here will not yield any result beyond making me feel bad and dragging me back into a job i no longer have.

I would like to draw a line under this inline business and close this thread down as i am no longer at the company and so it has well and truly run it course. The backstory of the problem is more or less irrelevant too and the only relevant information is what will be done about it. First, the info@laserengines email is now dead. It is not being monitored and you will not receive replies. Equally, the laser phone number is also dead for the same reason. The inline engines need one component replaced. It has been designed, manufactured, but not finished. Once available those with engines will be contacted using the list i kept of who had them, and i will find some time to sort it out. It will be done in my own time when i can, fitted in around a new job, new nephew, house move, car needing work etc. The upgrade will not be charged and you are free to take it, or not. Just note that there is likely to be only one chance to take it so if you decline then have an issue in a few years the opportunity will have been missed. Hope that clears it up. Im off to see if i can loose my powerpoint headache. Mods, if you can knock this on the head now that would be great as we are done here.

AS i have posted before i tested some intended for use in the Laser wot4 xl flying test bench. After about 2 minutes of testing i put them back in the box and sent them back to ripmax. They were gritty, had poor resolution and did not like to return to centre. I was also able to send them into some sort of fit when i accidentally twanged the stick. After 10 seconds of this they were getting very hot and did not smell healthy at all. Futaba, Savox, Hitec. I wouldnt not give anything else a 2nd thought.

Dont we all. Looks great though, whats going to make it go?

Maybe, but there is nothing to stop anyone else starting a company making engines. In part this is why the selling the company chat is a moot point. If it was such a great and profitable idea everyone would already have done it. If anyone does decide to start a new company making engines do let me know. I can become a consultant and charge an exorbitant fee 😄

MSL will hold springs in stock and can just order up more if they ever run out. Not sure what the MOQ is, likely around 250 springs.