eflightray

The RCM&E magazine generally has a few adverts in the Classified for model flight training, they wont be for free. Depending how the training is done, I see no reason why someone should not charge a fee for good quality training, whether it's for a beginner, or some advanced training. The person can always say no. How many fliers would really be willing to give up their free time, (flying time), to teach beginners ?. It's often not a 5 or 10 minute job, but quite a fair amount of time over a few days. If someone wants to teach/train you for a fee, you can always say no, and try to find someone who will do it for free. I just hope they are all good teachers, a poor teacher who charges or is free, will soon lose clients. Play golf ?, ask the golf pro for free lessons   Edited By eflightray neath on 08/02/2015 13:14:51

Whatever the material used, there needs to be that spark for wanting to build a model. The expansion of ready built models may have put a lot of potential builder off trying. The 'I could never build something that good, so I wont bother' syndrome. But just the same as for balsa, there is a whole range of models and plans available, from the simple to the very complex. Start with the simple, or dive in the deep end, it just needs that spark and will to try. If people have only ever flown ready made models, they are probably missing the greatest ear to ear grin imaginable, that one where a model you built yourself flies for the first time. Magic.     Edited By eflightray neath on 07/02/2015 19:18:56

I posted a thread a while ago on my method of doing fuselages, -- Some ideas for scratch building Depron fuselages. **LINK**

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 05/02/2015 20:35:58: Posted by eflightray neath on 05/02/2015 20:14:06: Model planes are strange things. When we flew free flight model they rarely crashed. You speak for yourself......... mine usually did! I had a good free flight teacher, it's all about trimming and knowing what and how to. Which also helped considerably when I moved on to single channel RC, (no trims on the Tx back then). Sadly I doubt many of to days RC fliers will ever try free flight, and learn about how to trim a model.

If you have built models with balsa, then Depron is similar to a soft balsa sheet. I currently only build using Depron as the major material, I have the following scratch built using Depron with some balsa - 59" span Eagle, (the bird variety) 50" span DH Mosquito, (profile build) 67" span Douglas Dauntless, (very near scale) 59" A-10 Thunderbolt, (near scale) 90" Short Sunderland, (flown of water and grass) 64" span Mig 1.44, (look alike with ducted props) 72" span Spitfire, (based on TN's plan, but half the weight) 98" span Avro Lancaster, (near scale) So I guess you could say I like Depron, (mainly because I hate the price balsa wood has become, and I'm a cheapskate  .

Model planes are strange things. When we flew free flight model they rarely crashed. Add radio and give us control, and we can crash them without even thinking, or knowing why they crash. There must be some relationship between radio and people. Maybe it's that, 'we are superior, they are only toys' thinking that keeps letting us down. Give someone more controls are they can achieve chaos sooner. (Sorry, I might be thinking of politicians there ). Edited By eflightray neath on 05/02/2015 20:14:33

You wont know until you fly the plane. The 6" will give better acceleration, but lower top speed. The 12" will give lower acceleration, but a higher, (eventually) top speed. But will take/need more power. A static thrust test may give odd results as the 12" could be stalled.

Or don't build any wash-out or wash-in, (just flat and straight), and keep away from the models stall speed, which I would guess will be pretty slow. I don't build any wash-out into models, but I do make sure the wing is continually checked for any twist or warps during the build and finishing.

Posted by Ian101 on 27/01/2015 22:18:02: Evening everybody. I am a bit surprised by the interest in this project! Ray, I have seen your Lancaster and it flies beautifully, as does your Spitfire. When I saw how well your Spitfire flew, I had to have one. I did It a different way, but what a model it is to fly. Have you got a video of your Sunderland? I have looked everywhere and can't find one. ................................................................. You should find some videos, (good and bad), on Youtube, do a search on - eflightray sunderland - or just eflightray if you like boredom.   Edited By eflightray neath on 28/01/2015 15:40:38

Ref the motor link. Go to that HK page, scroll to the bottom and click on the - '...click here to see all reviews' Some users are using 8x4 props. As I posted earlier, actual users information is more valuable than any calculation.

I take it the 164W with a 7x4 is manufacturers 'technical' information, or real world ? I have never trusted manufacturers data, (I bit like believing a car manufacturers mpg figures in their brochure). The only way to determine real world information is with a wattmeter and tacho, (often worth while buying if flying electric). It's impossible for a larger prop to draw lower amps/watts than a smaller prop, (for the same voltage). If the motor is on the Hobby King site, there is often good user information down in the REVIEWS tab. Perhaps you should ask an 'Electrical Engineer', (Gerhard ?), I have only been flying electric for the past 30 years.

[QUOTE]My other consideration is to cut down these props, to achieve higher revs and hence pull more watts.[/QUOTE] ??? Cut down a prop and it will be less load on the motor, (as against its original size), so lower amps/watts draw, though the rpm may go up. Planes don't fly just on watts, (You could get all the watts available with a flywheel), they fly best on the right right prop turning the right rpm. For the same watts. If you want loads of initial acceleration and thrust, (but at the expense of reduced top speed), go bigger diameter lower pitch. If you want speed, (but at the expense of acceleration), go smaller diameter and higher pitch. The prop needs to match the flight requirement.

The more you load a motor, (bigger prop, more blades, higher pitch), the greater the amps and watts. Personally I would say 100W/Lb is way over the top for a trainer. That's in the aerobatic, fast scale job area. When you consider that the model will probably glide quite well on 0W/Lb, (power off), all you are looking for with a trainer is a reasonable climb. Depending on the model, weight, (wing loading), and how you want it to fly, that can be very low watts.

Very nice build. I went a little smaller at 98" span, still a pain to get in my car. Scratch built, Depron with some balsa.

This chart doesn't start until 10" diameter -- **LINK**

Assuming you mean electric power, a three blade prop of the same diameter and pitch will draw more current. I could depend if it's the same make and blade shape. For bigger diameter props 9" and upwards, the rough guide is to drop 1" on diameter if adding a blade, for a 7" it may not be necessary. Check with a wattmeter.

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 06/01/2015 15:15:23: I wonder how much "flying" things on Playstations and flight simulators (not specifcally RC ones) has created a sense of over confidence with people who have never flown? A sort of Clarksonesque "How hard can it be" syndrome That isnt meant as a critisism of decent flight sims they do help, at least I find it does, but no matter how good they are they are not the real thing Playstations can easily make a first time car driver in to a racing car expert. Also Youtube makes flying a model look so easy, especially EDF jets to a beginner. Then these grumpy old men tell you what you really want is box with a wing on top called a 'trainer', (isn't that for babies) For every different beginner, there are generally as many different experienced flier with 'their' teaching method. Same as the forums. A beginner asks a question, and they get answers from the very simplistic, (probably what they wanted), to so complex they think it's the start of a degree in aeronautical engineering. Then along comes an answer disagreeing with the 'degree' explanation, and the thread wanders off, along with the original poster, (who probably goes and buys a RTF, and tries to learn on their own. People. They differ as much a models do, some simple but work well, some complex that no one feels happy with. Trouble is there isn't a good guide on people like there is on models.