Ross Burgess

Thanks ED, Ok, so there isn't a dedicated port in base of the cylinder to lubricate the top end... as in a scavenger port in a 2 stroke etc.... I will indeed now pay attention to lubricating the rockers in my after-run procedure at day's end. I have had success with 2 strokes over the years by using Dexron (apparently, it's neutral Ph) - only ever suffering one rear bearing failure in some 20 years or more. I have recently taken a shine to Inox MX3 for lubrication - it's a food grade acceptable lubricant which is very thin. I note in the Saito instructions that they favor a "molybdenum" type oil for the top end.... I intend to chase this up and purchase some but at present am unaware of a source. I can get an automotive additive for gearboxes and differentials here in Oz - "Molybond". It is a small aluminium tube containing extremely fine molecules of graphite - so fine, that it is very difficult to remove from skin if stained. I am considering making up a solution of this molybond plus MX-3. The combination of both would be far thinner than Dexron and should easily locate the internals of the valve gear and tappets/cam and cam gear. In Saito's instructions, they state that on start up - it is "normal" for black waste of this molybdenum oil to be seen from the crankcase drain pipe. Your thoughts on this? frats, Rosco

thanks fella's - yes, on the FA-40a, it's exactly as shown on the above engine. Now, I am rapidly drawing a conclusion that Saito have fitted the vent here to maintain an oil level in the crankcase. It is still beyond me why - as the motor can be mounted in any orientation. My secondary conclusion is that it somehow gives positive lubrication to the cam gear and tappets themselves - by drawing the positive flow pulse of the crankcase out nearby to these critical working parts. On rear vented crankcases, the ventilation flow would be at the opposite end from these parts. On motors where the vent is fitted below the front of the piston, this may in fact create a lesser "sump" of lubrication when the motor is mounted vertically..... but a higher volume when inverted. I do not know the answers to these questions, but - being a quality Japanese manufacturer - I would fully expect the most appropriate location has been chosen due to many hundreds of hours of testing for both performance and durability... I have increased the I.D size of the silicone tubing fitted to my vent - with the endeavor of preventing any residual back pressure in the drain line. I am led to believe that it is "normal" for this 40 motor not to exhibit the anticipated visible drainage of crankcase oil once the motor has run in. There is next to nothing coming from my motor now after warm up. The pulses of pressure are free to pass both in and out - but the discharge of any visible oil is negligible. I have increased the airflow area around the front of the model and provided much relief through a large hole in the bottom of the cowl. I have also downsized the prop to an APC 10 x 6 to reduce load on the engine. These two combinations have reduced the crankcase temperature to a small amount.. but the crankcase continues to get quite warm to the touch/bordering on hot. After four flights today - at about 1/3 throttle, I stopped the motor on return to the pits and immediately felt the crankcase before any heat could conduct from the hotter part of the engine. After doing this on the first flight - the front of the engine was just warm... by the time I had done 4 flights - it was getting hotter. It may very well be that the motor is yet to fully settle in... it is not being worked very hard at all. We put a tachometer on it at maximum rpms running my usual "rich" setting with the 10 x 6 and it peaked at 10,500 pointed vertical. I am more than comfortable with this. There continues to be a feint blue plume visible when flying at all throttle positions - I do not believe I am causing this motor any grief whatsoever. Fuel usage with the 10 x 6 on this 4 lb 10 oz model at around 1/3 throttle was about 1/3 used of a 6 oz tank... so, 2 fluid oz per ten minutes.. that would give me near 30 minutes of flying time on one 6 oz tank. I am now almost convinced that for such a large wingspan model with this motor - the 10 x 6 prop is the most suited... the recommended 11 x 5 most definitely caused the motor to both use more fuel and run hotter. Transition from low speed to full power in the air was almost instantaneous... under full load. Previously, with the 11 x 5 - it did not hesitate - but progressively increased speed at a fast rate..... not as instantaneous as with the 10 x 6. The model lifted off the ground a lot quicker and I also noted much less left hand draw of straight line acceleration due to torque of the larger diameter prop. thanks again, chaps - and yes, I'll bang off a pic and try to post it in this thread. This motor is a pure charmer for an old timer model such as the Jnr 60.. it putters around effortlessly and the noise level is not a great deal higher than an electric model pulling under load. frats, Rosco

Thank you Martin, yes, my extension vent pipe is quite long... I will endeavor to shorten it and observe it it makes any change to oil flow. Yesterday, however - I did removed the silicone tubing altogether and run the engine - there continued to be very little, if anything come out of the nipple..... except the pulses of the crankcase as the piston moved up and down within. I had not, until now - considered that horizontally opposed twins (or quads) might have issue with a "volume balanced" crankcase - hmmmmmm not that this has any significance with a single. If it is simply "mist" which lubricates the engine working surfaces and bearings - I'm probably concerning myself over little.... but, I do like to see that this "mist" exits from somewhere... perhaps, with this vent being so high up on the crankcase - it exits through the normal exhaust as well... and a "sump" of some description is maintained below the vent.... However - my motor is mounted vertically - this would not be the case in an inverted application - and I am certain Saito would not have designed the engine to run without any such "sump" in that application. The instructions clearly state that the motor can be mounted in any position - they suggest inverted is not the most appropriate - because of potential damage on impact when landing.. or the possibility of a compression "lock" if the upper cylinder becomes flooded... Thanks for your response, Martin - much appreciated. I am about to enlarge the area around the front of the lower cowl (the top is open and free to air), plus enlarge the drain opening under the cowl... Airflow should both be increased under the motor and behind it as it exits upwards over the windscreen - there is considerable clearance behind the motor to the firewall.... frats, Rosco

Ok folk, thank you for your kind and reassuring words. I have also had response from the US Saito site and it would appear that I have nothing to concern myself over, save that the crankcase may be getting a tad warmer than it should. I will probably make a greater opening below the motor to get a little better air flow around the crankcase. The spinner I have fitted to the motor is a DuBro 1" diameter, 3 oz chrome plated brass. I chose this spinner to get a little more weight forward in this model - they are well known for being problematic due to the short nose and large/long fuselage behind the c of g. The chap at www.Saito tells me that it is perfectly normal for there being little discharge from the relief nipple on the side of the camshaft housing. During the first two bench runs, there was noticeable oil in this discharge - but now it is almost negligible... which he tells me is perfectly normal - the engine has virtually "run in" and not a lot of oil should be expected in the discharge. As has been stated above - everything seems to be "normal". As I mentioned, this is my first 4 stroke engine - after some 50 years of running 2 stroke glow and diesel engines. I am extremely sensitive to any "abnormality" and for want of reassurance - needed confirmation that the absence of noticeable oil from the crankcase vent on the side of the cam housing did not suggest failure of lubrication. The fact that there is pulsing pressure out through the tube connected to it suggests that there isn't a blockage issue. Perhaps, with this vent higher up on the crankcase - there is less oil discharge - I do not know why Saito decided to fit the vent here - in difference to where it is normally located - on the back plate or under the front of the crankcase. I now intend to make a larger opening in the front lower cowl below the motor and increase the drain hole size in the "sump" at the front of the base of the firewall (F1). This might get a bit more cooling air around the crankcase in general. I have not noted any bearing noise, and this heat may very well reduce when the engine has done a lot more work. There has been a consistent discharge of oil from the exhaust - and also a consistent amount of "blue" in the exhaust smoke. I firmly believe my fuel mix appropriate at 18% oil. I believe there would be sufficient lubrication to the two main bearings and overhead gear. The valves and seats would be getting lubrication due to the intake and exhaust. I do not know how much passes them when open to lubricate the rockers and tappets etc.. I would expect that the cam gear would get lubrication from the pushrod tubes as oil would flow down past them and onto the tappets and cam etc. etc. I note in Saito's instructions that there is apparently some form of porting to lubricate the bearings and cam gear.. something to do with the piston/cylinder providing lubrication to the crankcase - I do not know where this is within the engine. I suppose my fear was that this "porting" may have been blocked or some swarf etc had managed to restrict it... hence my concern that there was very little oil coming from the crankcase breather at the cam housing. As stated, the motor runs as sweet as a kitten... it putters beautifully and idles better than almost any two stroke I have ever run. I never hesitates to quickly run up to full rpm's and I have every confidence it in maintaining idle whenever the throttle stick is moved back to idle - no matter how quickly. It is indeed a lovely little engine...... my first 4 stroke that I have now run... I have six other 4 strokes, three of them Saito (56, 62 and 72) and three OS (FS-61, 62V and 95V) all new in boxes that I have "accumulated" over the years - but never have fitted them to a model. My 2 stroke days are now behind me.. I simply love these sweet motors... if the remainder prove to be as enjoyable as this one - I'm in for some very happy flying at the club. Thank you one and all for you kind replies, much appreciated. Please feel most welcome to continue to add to this thread - I look forward to further suggestion and observation. I will keep the forum advised in continuance of events with this motor. My fears have pretty much be allieved.. the heat issue is now my only concern. frats, Rosco

Hi all, seeking some advice here. Have sent an email to the US based Saito site asking for opinion as well. I have this beautiful Saito FA40A motor in my Junior 60. I have now flown it four times. It flies the big undercambered wing span model very well on just under 1/2 power. Take off is not an issue - it won't climb vertical, but it climbs out quite steeply without hesitation. I mix my own fuel to an exacting proportion. That being 16% synthetic, 2% castor, 10% nitro-methane and 72% methanol. The motor fired up second flip (hand started this engine only) from out of the box... second day, it took me a lot more effort to hand start - as was the third and fourth day... all hand started. This is my first 4 stroke - and I'm in love with it. Ok - now the bits I need help with. The motor appears to run hot - the crankcase is almost too hot to keep a finger on after a run. the cylinder is hotter. My biggest concern, however - is the very miniscule amount of oil coming out the breather vent - located on the upper side of the cam housing. The vent is clear - and when running, I can feel free pulsing coming from it. I have removed the rocker covers to establish oil getting to the top of the motor. There is no visible pooling up of oil, but there is a coating film of oil on the rockers and inside walls of the covers. I ran in the motor verbatim to Saito's instructions. I used the recommended 11 x 5 APC prop for all work. I tried dropping down to a 10 x 6 APC today to reduce load on the motor - but it has made not one jot of difference to the hot crankcase... or lack of oil discharge from the vent. So far, the engine has consumed about 7 tank fulls of fuel. I am hoping it is merely a case of it not being fully run in yet. There is oodles of compression. No bearing noise. The motor idles beautifully at almost a very slow tick-over and there is no hesitation going to full power. It also drops back to a steady idle every time without any sign of faltering. I have the main needle set at three knurled notches out from full rpms and the idle needle a nano breath back from the smoothest and highest idle. perhaps 1/15th of a turn rich. I am very much hoping that someone else with the same engine can report similar observations. If not - I would very much also like suggestion on what to look for if there is some form of lubrication issue. Ok, until I hear comments on this issue - I'll wait with baited breath. All comments very much appreciated. frats, Rosco

Windows done - throttle servo now connected using cable. Servo fitted on rhs cabin wall just below window height. About to attack the nose block - once painted, we're set to go... after I run in the new FA 40 motor. frats, Rosco

Ok - pix as promised. In the second one - you can see the 40 bolted in. The prop washer (pressed onto crank) is exactly where it is on the plan. The mid height of the fuel tank is exactly at the needle valve. You can see two black lines on the top of the cabin framework - this is where I have marked the 30% of wing chord length from the leading edge where the re-positioned wing sits (1" further back than on the plan). My wing dowels have been moved accordingly so that they are just outward of where the wing sits. The #64 rubber bands stretch almost to their limit when crossed from the rear of one side to the front of the other. I intend to fit about 10 bands all up - I certainly don't want them to snap in mid-flight.   first pic - looking down into the fuel tank bay. You can see the open frame cradle I built to support the tank. It also shows the stubby short lengths of dowel epoxied through two thicknesses of ply and also onto the former and tank cradle. The two lengths of carbon fibre have been epoxied into the cradle on each side - #64 rubber bands will hold the tank down onto the cradle - it will sit on a fitted piece of latex foam between it and the cradle. You can also see the sealed out battery box below the tank cradle. Access to this is from a removable hatch on the underside. This hatch is of ply, the front has a ply tongue which fits into a slot under the former. At the rear, a piece of spruce was fitted transversely across the fuselage bottom sheet. A hole drilled through the hatch and into this spruce affords a wood screw with washer to hold it in place.   Ok - pix..           frats, Rosco Edited By Ross Burgess on 23/01/2016 00:59:27 Edited By Ross Burgess on 23/01/2016 01:00:38

Very nice Mike, I now have some inkling as to how to do the nose - your blockwork is quite visible, thanks. Yes, once oil gets into balsa - it's almost impossible to remove it.. acetone seems to get some of it out - but it usually comes to the surface again. You might like to try balsaloc or Deluxe covergrip - after a liberal dousing of repeated applications of acetone. One word of warning when using acetone to do this though - don't flood any area where there are glue joints or the like... I have been a long standing advocate for the application of fibreglass resin in areas prone to being subjected to castor oil (or modern day synthetics). Anything which "can" get attacked usually gets at least one application of resin - left for a week and then sanded down to a thin layer. Be careful sanding fibreglass resin - it is "deadly"... your body will build up a intolerance to the fine dust - and it can cause breathing issues - if it happens, nothing the ambo's can do for you ... so, be warned - outside and with a face-mask on .. make sure to wash any exposed skin and dump your clothes in the tub when finished. I suffered something very similar to this back in 1982... I was sanding down the 40 sized Stik, which I had completely painted with the stuff... amazing finish after painting with enamel.... My feet "blew" up... to the point I had to take my shoes of... it took days for them to return to normal.... My GP then told me of the dangers of the stuff... I don't believe this is widely known. So, if you do take my suggestion - and decide ever to use this resin and sand it - be very careful. It's fine if you just paint it on... no issue at all... but the sanded dust will eventually overcome your resistance to it. Update on my Jnr 60.... tossed and turned all night over the link rod from the servo to the throttle... will attempt a cable connection today - and move the throttle servo back into the cabin. frats, Rosco

Thanks Engine Doctor - this one won't get thrown around in wind.... unless it's blustery. I have been recently flying a 30 year old Pilot Attacker 28 - which I converted to electric. The little model is a dream to fly....not particularly aerobatic (it has its quirks) - but is stable enough for 3 turn spins and not-too-slow ... slow rolls. Having converted myself to Mode 2 since my recent (2 years and a bit) return to r/c fixed wing... my aerobatic skills (along with a much more "senior" eye/hand co-ordination) are very much well below the gold wing level which was rated at some years back. However, getting to the point - the Attacker does all I need for thrills... I am in the process of completing another relic which didn't come to fuition - a 40 sized Stik (second one). The Stik I have been flying certainly reveals all my inadequacies... So, I'm really hoping my Junior will be everything you suggest it will.... I just want something I can truddle around in for a good 15 minutes... doing lazy circuits and figure 8's... I doubt very much that I'll ever try to loop this dear little thing... let alone try to roll it...there simply is no point - it was never designed to go upside down - everything about it seems to suggest it will fight you every second that you attempt to get that pendulum looking undercarriage and wheels above the fuselage. If it will putter around effortlessly way up above the "maniacs" who have a certain need for speed and thrills - well, I will have achieved what I set out to.... save that I really did want the little open rocker 30 in this model... maybe we'll build a version 2.... they are a lot easier the second time around... Thanks again, folk.... will post up some pix tomorrow... it's just before midnight here and my tapping away at this noisy keyboard is keeping the mice awake.... frats, Rosco

Thanks again, Denis and David. Work continues - getting close.. but no cigar yet. The 30 will no longer fly this model.... sadly, the engine mount holes are too different from the 40 to interchange them - so, the FA40 A it is. New tank fitted today to replace the OK model Co. 60 oz... I went with a 6 oz again due to maybe having to use more power than just a slight tick-over.. we'll see - I'm pretty confident it will stay up in the air for as long as I have patience to do the lazy circuits. As for changing things out to reduce weight - I fully understand you position, Denis - but in my application it simply won't work. I believe making most use of the necessary weight to get the c of g forward has resulted in using these bigger servo's, the plan undercarriage and alloy wheels. I now have the 3 0z Du-bro chrome plated brass spinner and all assembled without the nose block - it is just a smidge over 4 1/2 pounds... so, I think we're in with a chance with this over-powered model. I have done a bit of reading of late on how the tailplane is affected by an model - and I do understand what your saying David. If I don't apply sufficient weight to the front of this model - and the c of g is further back than it should be - there will be almost zero inherent stability - and beyond a very slightly set rearwards c of g - an almost unconrtrollable model. Too much weight to get the c of g far enough forward makes for a heavier model - and we all know that heavy models are hippos in the air - they just want to sink. This Junior 60 model has a lot of lift in the wing - I am very hopeful that it will be sufficient for the 4 1/2 pounds I am inflicting on it. Under power, it could go anywhere.. we won't know until it gets to flying speed down the strip - and once I achieve this, I believe the urge to set it in flight will be too tempting. We have a lot of tall grass/reeds at the north end of our strip - not good at this time of year (summer) due to the plethora of snakes which abound in there at the billabong - but a lot safer than the trees and fence at the southern end of the field... so, I'm guessing I'll wait for either a windless or a northerly blowing wind for its maiden. The 40 is only marginally heavier than the 1979 30... it actually sits lower on the model... the original rockers and high lift central throws on the pivots made for a very tall motor. The 40 is very low in comparison. Ok, couple of things to add... I had a terrible time trying to get the throttle linkage working... bought one of those Du-bro 4 stroke linkages and spent a good hour trying to work out any conceivable way in which it would work with the Saito 40 in this model... gave up when all I was going to get from the kit was the pivot in the motor throttle linkage... so, just grabbed one out of my spare parts and put the kit back into it's package for another model. Principle is sound - but it just doesn't work on this model with the wood engine bearers and very short distance from firewall to engine. I ended up simply fabricating a thin stainless steel rod and put a double bend in one end through the servo arm and a couple of in llne bends then into the adjustable rod holder. I have full throttle travel nearing the limits of the servo - which I will program into the Tx. Fuel tank - I don't know, but I may have "invented" something here.... chances are, it's been done before - but I haven't seen it. I was going to create a masterpiece of wood for the tank to nestle into surrounded by latex foam.. but somewhere in the madness which was about to unfold - I found another way of getting the issue resolved -and at probably less than 1/2 the weight. I built a cradle for the round bottom tank not long after putting the fuselage together. At the same time, I built a self-contained battery box beneath it. A hatch on the underside gives access to the LiFe battery -which is enveloped in latex rubber. The final part of the fuel tank concerned me for quite some time - then I had a "Eureka" moment... Two thin carbon rods passing down each side of the tank cradle. At each end of these rods, I would run a rubber band from one side and up and over the tank then down to the other. This is repeated at the other end of the tank. Access is very easy through the open cabin roof with wing removed. On the base of the cradle, there is a pad of latex rubber... so - effectively, the tank is completely suspended in rubber - of one kind or the other. A small piece of latex is placed on a rear positioned cross member between the fuselage sides and the two silicone hoses passing through the firewall prevent any solid contact. With two #64 rubber bands across the tank - it won't shift.. but can happily sit in suspension.. I believe this is all that will be necessary. So, tank is now fitted - so too is the throttle control. I am now fitting a UBEC between the battery and the switch - a couple of the servos weren't too happy when I connected up with a fully charged 7.2 v... the 5V UBEC has made them a lot more comfortable. So, now it's down to the windows and making up the front nose block and cowl. Any suggestions how to go about these....? Pix tomorrow... just to give you a view of what I have done in the fuel tank/throttle linkage areas.. frats, Rosco

Thanks David, I panicked a bit and will be receiving a new Saito FA40 today. The mounts for this motor are extremely close to that of the 1979 FA30 open rocker motor. I will now maiden this model with the 40, and hopefully if it becomes obvious that the little 30 will manage - retro fit that engine for period. As Ken mentioned above, the model should fly comfortably below 1/2 throttle - the large wing area and undercambered wing should allow it to fly gently. The huge dihedral should keep it stable. I must repeat here, which I believe may have been overlooked - is that there is absolutely zip incidence in the wing/tailplane - zero. If I am not wrong - this should allow a more controllable flight under power. I have the standard built in down thrust as per plan. My offset is set at 2 1/2 degrees right. David, I am very much comforted to learn that your model weighed 4 1/2 pounds... mine, with the slightly heavier motor up front, chrome plated brass spinner (3 oz.) and the difference of whatever lead you used and I will have to add - should result in my model coming in under 5 lbs. I am in the process of replacing the 6 oz tank at present. I have ordered a new 6 oz and 4 oz tank. The bung on the OK Models (Pilot kit, circa 1980) is useless... and finding a replacement of the same larger size from my LHS's resulted in failure. Seems, modern tanks use a smaller diameter bung. I will more than likely use an 11 x 5 APC prop for this 40 ... the 30 will more than likely run a smaller 10 x 6. Both these motors, being my first 4 strokes which I am about to use (I have six of them, and yet to run one) will run on my home brewed fuel. I will mix up 18% oil at 13% synthetic and 5% castor. I will use 10% nitro methane. The small amount of castor is to afford residual lubrication. I have employed this mix with an OS 45 FSR ABC which is some 30 plus years old - and has faithfully run without any maintenance save one Enya #3 plug. I also use Dexron ATF as an after run and during storage. I am now experimenting with Inox MX-3 (food grade) in a 50-50 mix with the Dexron. The MX-3 appears to have better penetrating ability - which will suit preventing the dreaded castor glugging up. I have found MX-3 to be most suitable in leaving a very thin film on the electrical contact rails of my Scalextric slot car track - it is very difficult to remove entirely without employing some cleaning fluid (meths, etc). thanks again, David - you words give me considerable comfort. frats, Rosco

Ok folk, finally plucked up the courage to do some weighing.... details -   Wing including servos 508 FA30 motor with 11 x 5 prop 388 3 oz chrome plated brass spinner 86 1,450 LiFe battery 82 Tank minus fittings 14 2 main servos 112 Aileron leads, switch harness 8 Engine mounting plates, servo screws 10 Fuselage with rods, radio receivers, undercarriage Wheels, painted 856   2064 gramms 2.064 g = 72.67 ozs = 4.54 lbs So, now armed with this info - what is your opinion on the weight of my model for this little early Saito 30? I have yet to add the nose block, fuel tubing/lines and windows - but I believe the above is pretty much it... not forgetting the amount of lead I'll have to add to get the c of g at the where the wing chord will be. Last night, hand drew out the wing panel name.. hand painted it this morning.. bit rough - but I'll probably live with it... pic..   frats, Rosco Edited By Ross Burgess on 18/01/2016 01:40:01 Edited By Ross Burgess on 18/01/2016 01:45:19 Edited By Ross Burgess on 18/01/2016 01:47:51

Percy, I go into most things I do like this - leopards and spots stuff...never change them, even if I tried. I will cut out the screen from the plan and follow your instructions - they seem to have simplified the process of getting it to follow the frame and firewall shape - thanks. As for over-powering the model - no, it's not my intention... the only way I'll commit to fitting a larger motor is if I can't get a satisfactory lift off and climb out with the restrictions around the field where I fly. We have a long strip, but there are issues at both ends with a gun club at one end and a river at the other. EG - your figures ease my mind with the weight of what I believe my model might come out at. With your 9 lbs, that equates to the 4 kg's I mentioned up above somewhere - I am really hoping that I come in below this. As for the ailerons - yes, they were a "rush of blood" incorporation. Originally, I intended to reduce dihedral - then when I was fitting the two wing halves to the reduced brace, the model lost all period character - and I changed back to the full dihedral... far too late in the wing build to do away with the ailerons... then up came plan B to use them as flaperons... The amount of mix I'll put in with rudder will probably see these totally unused except as flaps when switched in for landing. This switch is two position... and - if they are not suitable for use as flaps - I'll simply lock them in place and removed the servo's and fill the servo bays.... That's as far as I have thought this out so far... Oh - one more addition tonight, I have marked out a free hand style (period) "Junior 60" on the right hand wing panel... I'll snap a pic when I hand paint it in the red/brown trim colour. It gives the model a much more appeasing and period look.... 50 years old already - posted above... this will be the "oldest, newest" model on the block... I'm hoping that chrome plated brass spinner will turn up this week (excuse pun).. it weighs 3 oz's.. and might just get my c of g with the rearward wing mount right under the edge of the wing sheeting/spar.... this is where I believe the c of g needs to be - I am aiming about 1" further back on the fuse than marked on the plan... this equates to the 1" further back wing position.. Thanks again, folk - please keep comments coming... as i will continue to post on progress. frats, Rosco

Thanks, Percy - no, the ailerons will drop like flaps - and the elevator will compensate with down ele. I haven't weighed it yet.. it might not be as bad as I am eluding... until I get it on the scales, I really have no idea whether it's 2 kg's or 3 kg's. The wing area and under camber will certainly give it lift... it should be able to handle that sort of weight. If it's 4 kg's or more.. then I'll need to fly it like a ballistic missile with enough grunt up front to pull it.....hence the recent purchase of the FA56. As for shirt box - yes, absolutely correct..... no good for front window - might be ok for the sides. I am now thinking of heat forming a front windscreen using a gentle heat gun and a soft drink bottle .. they can be formed over a solid shape and will shrink down very well to it... I should be able to sand a piece of wood to shape and then heat shrink the bottle plastic over it.. smoothing and cooling it out with a wet rag once formed. People's thoughts? frats, Rosco

Ok folk, masking tape off..... yippee! Lines are a lot sharper than they look in the following pix... shrinking them down to a small file size has pixelated them. The only one I'll have to address is the line under the cabin... it has "bled" a bit. Thanks for posting your Jnr 60 livery up above, Ken  - I have very much stolen most of it - I do hope you approve of my effort.   pix..                 frats, Rosco Edited By Ross Burgess on 17/01/2016 05:00:25 Edited By Ross Burgess on 17/01/2016 05:03:04