Tony Richardson

Give em the whole nine yards, does it not come from the fact that ammo belts in US fighters of WWII where 27 feet long, therefore to empty your ammo into one target you gave em the whole nine yards,  " they don't like it up em sir "  Now where did that come from??  anyone!

Good idea Terry, that said the interest in the FW42 comes from a very small number of people and I am sure there must be more reading this forum than replying to it so how much interest have we actually created??  like yourself, Barry and a few others I like unusual aircraft, modern and historical but it is true that models like the Spit and the Mustang seem to be front and centre most of the time most likely because they can still be seen fliying at many venues around the globe,  so until those unorthodox aircraft are presented I am afraid it will be the WW II warbirds that dominate the model industry/hobby.

Barry tryTHIS page, it is for a delta with a canard but should work the same.

Barry you could try This for a three view also some info about the aircraft and some piccy's of the model wind tunnel tests.

Must be a beggar to steer.

Warms the cockles of your heart don't it Barry we whirly lover's shall have our wish.   If all goes well with the FW42 I would be really interested in a set of drawings/plans Barry please keep me posted.

Hi Terry, I have the Multiplex sonic liner ( purchased in a moment of electronic weakness not overly popular in my neck of the woods ) which as I am sure you are aware is kind of a knock off of the Boeing experimental passenger liner that never came to pass a few years ago, anyway this SL has a canard and it makes for a very controllable model with a very slow stall speed and as soon as the nose drops it start flying again this could be some of the reasoning behind the design of the FW42, according to the "specs" Here it was not a fast aircraft and landed at only 53 mph,  with two tractor engines as opposed to pusher's ( jet or prop ) there should be sufficient airflow over the rudder and ailerons to give good control at low speeds, I think it would make an interesting and unusual model that should not be too difficult to build or fly, if my drafting skills were better I would certainly give it a go.  There is also a small static model produced Here just scroll down the page and enjoy some of the wierd and wonderfull things that could be modelled.   Erfolg I just highlighted the piccy, right click for copy and then used the paste symbol in the dialogue box on this page/thread. Edited By Tony Richardson on 23/04/2009 03:23:22

How about this one from Germany don't think it ever flew but there were some wind tunnel tests conducted and a few photographs of those tests do exist, it is a twin but the square design might make it a simple build something a bit different from the FW boys, could you imagine this as a bomber over London in the forty's.    

Go for it Graeme, maybe Tony will give us a plan for a Whirlwind in a regular issue????

Hi Graeme I think Terrys idea is excellent too it would be benificial to have the criteria narrowed a little, if Germany was the first country I would love to see a B & V 141 this I believe was the only one of the asymmetric designs ever flown but there are many more, some even kitted in 1/72 static scale, something designed around a 52-60 four stroke would be nice even though I like electric for multi designs I really like the sound of a four stroke ic engine, trying to replicate that; with the electric models is where I find it starts to get prohibitive, unless of course you get into the large aerobats or large scale that require 10s plus, that is way above my budget, but for the average sport model I think they are close, my Nigel Hawes Tucano is getting a little tatty now but it is a sweet flyer and can be flown for around 25 minutes on a 3200 Li-Po.    As for the Queens last visit couldn't really tell you, but it most likely wasn,t in the winter.

Queens rule or not Barry's suggestion makes a lot of sense, at the moment we have maybe a little too much choice? remember last years format, first the members forwarded ideas for a free plan, it was then narrowed to a much smaller choice by David and Co, the members than got to vote for one out of that list.   Allowing Tony N to create a list of suitable subjects would allow him and the rest of the team at RCM&E to eliminate the really involved models that require too much time to design and are a really difficult build for a lot of people.   That said, as for twins being as big and complicated as we should get for a free plan I have to disagree Tony's Lancaster and B52 are excellent examples of what can be done in the 72" range of 4 engine models also let's not forget the Dak and the Airbus all "large" models by some standards but with the cost of electronics and batteries getting less by the month ( global economic situation aside ) these fall well within the budget of a very large number of builders, Li-po batteries are now very close to the cost of Ni Mh with less weight and extended flight times, you have to look at the cost of a battery pack as though it is buying fuel in advance, $150 Canadian will buy me 6 US gallons of fuel if I buy it on a pro-mo, that same $150 will also get me a 4400 mah 3s Li-po from the L.H.S. and I would paying over the odds for it, the fuel will be gone in a season the battery will last maybe two providing it is used and not abused.   I think there is room in this hobby of ours for everyone and our taste's, budget and choices of models will always be very diverse and that is what keeps it interesting and keeps forums such as these open.   Can't wait to see how it all goes next year.   Edited By Tony Richardson on 19/04/2009 17:33:44

Looks good Tony, I think my RCV 58cd is going to be just right it swings a 12x6 no problem so a 13 or 12.5x3.75 should work also if not I have an OS 52 that will.

Pete have you thought about the RCV 58 cd it's about equal in power to the 52 but has a lower profile so should fit the cowl better, for a little extra grunt for the Lizzie a Saito 65 would do well, though it is pretty light and you may have to add some nose weight,  the full size had a heavy radial up front. Edited By Tony Richardson on 30/03/2009 06:00:20

   

Don't know how you do it Tony, I can hardly assemble an ARF in that time.

Although most of us run 4 stroke engines there are still a few who favour the 2 stroke and anything that would reduce noise would be welcome, I live on an island that is smaller than the UK not heavily populated but neighbours do have to be considered,  one of the ways that noise has been reduced is to favour larger 4 strokes than actually needed, use a larger prop to keep RPM down (also prop tip speed) and use a higher nitro content to improve the idle and throttle response on the low end.   Now back on thread topic, my first choice for next year would be the Whirly ( and I am sure Tony will get around to it ) but how about a Twin Otter or a Beaver both of these operate from our harbour on floats, that said Beaver kits and plans are abundent, a Fiesler Storch at around 65-72 inches would be nice, for a glimpse at a large model built buy someone far better than I check This site it is really worthwhile and Rays models are not hangar queens all are flown on a regular basis.   Just for the heck of it guys civilian or military for next year.

Sounds as though you should have an exhaust system on your drawing board Terry, it certainly would be popular.    There are many aftermarket systems here in Canada and certainly in the USA but they really offer only custom shaping not silencing, you could be on to a good un, maybe we should all start canvassing for quieter mufflers,  that said both OS and Saito have improved somewhat.

Barry your'e right the $10 passage is no longer avaiable, cost me a lot more than that to get out of the UK.

There is a lot that can be done to reduce noise from ic motors, I have an RCV 58cd in a fun fly swinging a 12.5 x 3.25 APC prop it gives lots of thrust and full throttle is rarely used so prop noise is minimal but I find the number one thing for reducing engine noise is to simply ( if possible ) point the muffler up and away from the ground so engine noise is directed towards the clouds, 4 strokes "seem" less noisy than 2 strokes because even at full throttle they do not have that annoying buzz of the 2 stroke just attend a heli fly-in sometime and listen to the whine and those guys really know how to keep noise to a minimum.   Erfolg and Terry you are probably right in assuming electric flight is the way of the future but I am not sure for the reasons you state noise is only one part of the picture, this side of the pond a lot of people not involved with this hobby are under the misconception that electric/battery powered aircraft are somehow safer ( because they are quieter maybe??) and less likely to injure than ic powered ones, I don't think they realize the injury comes from the propeller and not the method of powering it, it could be said an electric motor is more powerfull than its ic equivalent as it will not stall out under load like the ic but keep pulling power from the battery until the thermal break in the speed controller trips or the battery runs out of power or maybe a component  overheats and fails, noise aside safety issues are equal to both I think.   Just my ten penneth.

Hi Tmbo this electric flight really is interesting don't ya think   Martin I think you are right about the perceived noise, I have seen some of the Pattern planes generate higher readings on a decibal meter than a glow model with a YS 140.

Timbo I have to agree in some respects 100w per lb is great but would we really need that much power for a model of this size and type after all it is a slow ( and should be ) high lift STOL aircraft not a Yak 54 type, I am not sure but I believe E-Flite name their out-runner motors to their performance of a 2 stroke glow if this is so the 60 should be more than enough, that said the battery requirement will not be small 5-6s maybe.  Re-reading the article on last years plan I see Tony recomends an Axi 4124-14 or equivalent and a 4s 3700 mAH Li-Po for the 7lb Typhoon, although no mention is made of prop size and a lot can be achieved by juggling battery and prop size to garner the correct amount of thrust, providing ground clearance is avaiable.  I really cannot see this one being any more exspensive to kit out than the previous two, I do not know the cost of all equipment in the UK but here in Canada most guys figure on $500-$800 for the average model excluding the Transmitter ARF or otherwise that said I have a superb Magic fun fly ARF that cost only $225 (that would be about  £110 I think) but I also consider it totally expendable.   Terry has a point about easy to build and less exspensive free plans but Tony has penned a few of those over the years with his dogfight doubles the Mosquito/Moskito comes to mind I also think there was a Se5a and its counterpart, I most likely have the plans somewhere, I might be wrong but I think that many modellers will keep the plan for a future build knowing that they now have a plan that is not front and centre in the hobby and others will set to and build before the ink is dry on the article.   I really do plan on this one being a project for next winter and will purchase the wood pack to make it a little easier, and depending on finished weight may have to start looking for a bargain 70 four stroke or suitable electrickery set-up who knows, either way it is exciting.

Erfolg / Terence,  E-Flite make a range of motors that is sure to have one that will work in this upcoming model of Tony's, the E-flite 60 outrunner on 5 li-po cells should do very well may even be overpowered! sells over here for around $160.

I'll go for a size that suits an RCV 58CD its just sitting around waiting for a new home 65-70 inches would be just right.

Can I order one now

Ok so let's get it back on topic, I assume a "flick" roll would be what is called over here a "snap" roll??