Jump to content

Mike Bell

Members
  • Posts

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mike Bell

  1. I'm finally getting round to starting the Jungmeister fuz rebuild. Below is the starting point. Covering stripped back a bit. Raggy edges cut back to form the joint for the new front end graft. Should be able to get some nice thin ply doublers in place across the joint to make it strong. I'm currently tracing fuselage sides and formers etc ready to start cutting new bits. I feel a bit more enthusiastic about doing it now I have started.
  2. Hi Ian, I have been using a Silhouette Cameo for a few years now. It works really well for most stuff but has limitations on how small you can go with lettering. I have found that anything below about 8mm high or so letters can be a problem, the cutter tends to drag the letter off the backing. Everything else is great. Below is a recent example of something I did with the Cameo.
  3. OK that link is a dud, try this one. LINK
  4. HI Andy, I'm pretty sure that the stuff in B&Q will be too soft. You need an alloy from the 2xxx or 6xxx series of age hardenable grade alloys. I would suggest you look at somewhere like Noggin End Metals where they have 2014 and 6082 grade alloys that would be more suitable. There is a link below if it works. LINK
  5. I've been psyching myself up to repair this for a couple of years now, this might be the incentive I need. It used to be a Bucker Jungmeister I had a build blog on in this forum a while ago. Crash due to a dodgy rx battery cell
  6. I built one of these a couple of years ago for single channel and I can report it flies very nicely. Don't worry too much about getting into hot water with the under camber Dwain, I just chucked my wings in a hot bath for 15mins or so and they bent around the formers quite easily. It's a bit weird but it works. Mike
  7. Steady on Ken, old chap. The demise of local model shops and youngsters looking for instant gratification is a problem but if you look back at magazines as far back as the 70s the imminent demise of aeromodelling have been predicted as far back as that, but here we are still going. While most young'uns may not be interested there is a continuous conveyor belt of young'uns becoming middle aged uns and then old'uns, some of whom take a fancy to model aeroplanes. That's been pretty much the pattern for ages. So chin up Ken, it's not like it used to be, but it's not dead yet either
  8. I started going to the Nats in the late 60's including one at Hullavington. That might have been the one where I entered C/L combat. I was totally out of my depth but great fun. One thing I don't miss about the Nats in those days were the toilets. If you wanted more than a widdle you were faced with some truly horrendous facilities so we all went home with buttocks clenched. Ahh the good old days, thank goodness for the facilities and bogs maintenance squads of today.
  9. Just for interest, Simples has undergone some evolution since the plan was published.. The changes were more about experimentation than anything else, any actual improvements in flying characteristics are quite small but the appearance has changed a bit. The version below was the precursor to Simples Max that was recently published in the mag. This one is a further evolution with a split elevator that allows the fin to move back a bit. If I were to do this again I would make the nose a bit longer, this needed nose weight to get the cg correct.
  10. Sorry about the house disruption Dwain, I take full responsibility. There is no dihedral, it is completely flat. @Chris, thanks for posting the video link. Mike
  11. Tony, if you go on YouTube and search for SF22Q8c-42s you should see the video. Mike
  12. Hi Tony, sorry to hear you have had troubles with Simples. I must say I'm a bit surprised as in my area there have been at least 5 or 6 people successfully built and flown them. Usually the source of any initial issues lies with the balance. The location on the plan is a starting point but some fine tuning is usually required to hit the sweet spot. I would suggest moving the cg forwards even more as a start. Regardng thrust line, after bouncing off walls and other models a few times mine have often developed all sorts of different motor angles without much effect on flight so I would definitely concentrate on c of g. The design definitely works, I wouldn't have presented it for publication otherwise. I did put up a video on YouTube where you can see one of mine plus another flying just to prove it does. I hope you get it going ok with a bit of perseverance.
  13. Martin M, I have recently got to fly my Gnat and to answer your question on launch, a good, flat, firm throw is all that is needed. I am a mode 1 flyer too and have had no problems, the model stayed on track with no appreciable sink while I got my thumbs back to the sticks. I had too much aileron movement in initially which was a mistake but when dialled down a bit it is fine. As others have noted I have found that the elevator movement can be increased over the plan recommendation. I found on a couple of occasions that pull out from a dive could be a bit too slow for comfort. CG is as per plan. Mike
  14. Here it is at last fully finished and flown for the first time today. Was a bit blustery for trimming and sorting but it looks like it will perform as expected and the motor is running in nicely. I'm looking forward to getting more time on it in better conditions.
  15. Mike Bell

×
×
  • Create New...