Erfolg

I am very interested how this goes. My own thoughts were very much about placing the DF right at the back, pretty much adjacent to the out let. I also thought of increasing the inlet size. I was also thinking that I would have a cheater hole. Due to my lack of experience of DF, that is why I started with a simpler DF model (so I thought). I could not decide where the Lipo would probably need to go. I have drawn up the body shape. Also it compares with the TSR 2 in general proportions.

Does any one know what the incidence between wing and tail plane is/should be. This is the polypropylene electric version with the 46" (approx1.2m) wing?

As the Flyinflyn suggested that a 32GB SD Card would be formatted as required, is true. The card has been lying by my printer for some time now, today, I used it.

Well Ron, what can I say? You might forget some of the detail, is very much an understatement when it comes to T-splines. It does seem the way to go for Spats. Conceptually I cannot decide to go for two sperate halves, reflected, or a single shape, that will require slicing with supporting extrusion, to cope with the overhangs that would be printed in mid air. I have used splines in the resent past, although without the complexity, and capability that the T-Splines video demonstrates. One of the lessons that is appropriate to me, is to plan as far as possible what I am trying to achieve. My initial approach of free styling as I go leads to failure for me. How the video T-Spliner did what he did leaves me, well, speechless, and in admiration. I will be re-watching the video in sections it seems.

Thanks for your reply Simon, not thinking through has caused me what to do problems, it seems that I have become very formulaic in my adhoc designs using balsa ply standard design. I am now thinking of a two hatch approach, the canopy and either the bolt on (as Alan) or a belly hatch. The pity is that the battery box was conceived as a structural member with end loading. Which will require some stress compensation re-enforcement. I was hoping to get all the major bits pretty much fabricated so as to decide if the wing as partially made would provided a wing loading circa 20-22 oz ft^-2 loading, or if some extra area needs finding.

Just a comment on the clevis-horn that failed. Polymers tend to fail at low or warm temperatures. Compared with metallic items their range of temperature viability is quite narrow. Also as mentioned the structural viability also tends to change with age, due to many things, from leaching of plasticers, photon damage (not normally a problem with models, although plastic gutter/drainpipes etc). Never mind "environmental stress cracking" that can happen with some of the solvents we like to use. On the face of it, there is not a lot going for plastics, in reality they are great for much of we do.

I hope the sketch adds some clarity😀

I have now back tracked, as I did not realise there were issues that are relevant, I was so busy thinking about so much that concerned me , initially some very relevant things did not register. Alan's posting did not come up in my in tray, for some reason. Now I can see others solutions to problems did not register So what did I initially not register, that the 162 had a wing. I was fixated on the duct to body junction (ignoring the wing completely), the other thing on my mind is the Lipo access. To date I am still disturbed by the issues. It is the issue of avoiding excessive weight, as interfaces often disproportionally (in full size also) increase the weight, At the same time I want to keep things secure. Normally I would rough out a design, not overly concerned with detail, relying on tried and tested generic solutions. Any issues normally are identified during the process. In this case, just drawing bits and pieces on taped together A4, has not worked well at all.

Still struggling, the problem I am having is a diagonal line from one plane to another. The line tool does not seem to allow cross plane lines. I can create a point for a line on one plane (or parallel plane), many different angular lines along the plane, or at 90 degrees to the pane, that is say the yz plane, not across the xyz planes. There is normally always a way, simple when you know what you are doing. If only I knew what ..............................................

I had thought that was a solution, although I did not think it was possible. You now what is coming, it is the how🙂? The general command process, from that, with luck (rather than intelligence) I will work out how to do it.

I am trying to create a extruded plane at a slight angle to the x,y plane, which starts wide and tapers to a narrower width. I am struggling to date. I feel confident that others will know the options.

Things continue to be frustrating here. I charged my batteries on everything yesterday, as the weather forecast was favourable, other than cold. Just as I was about to load my car it started to rain, which turned to light drizzle. I stayed at home, as the track to the field could be muddy and slippery and grass on the field would be wet, no doubt uncut, for some time now. Worst still my wives golf course is yet again closed, as are some of the links.

Christmas is now over. During the period, most definitely family time. Puts my hobby back into perspective. I have started on a body, being an ex-engineer plagiarism is my thing. On that basis I have the RCM&E free plan to hand. Whilst sketching out the body, I did realise that engineers like circles and straight lines. Unfortunately the real world forces complications like curves. The freebee has the circles, but all of my reference sources show the body at least in parts are more egg shaped. The problem seemed to be the real UC forced a widening of the lower body. I am most definitely not a slave to absolute accuracy, as my models deviate from this philosophy to make them very semi-scale. Yet another side tells me, unless there is a practical reason, keep thing scalish. As to the real design I have borrowed extensively from Simon and others, because all engineering knowledge comes from others efforts. Yet there is one issue at least unresolved, that is the hatch into the model for a lipo, I do not like the free plan very much, mainly because of the motor wires and the need to arm the model, fasten at least one screw, for me a bit clunky. I prefer a bottom hatch, yet this weakens the monocoque shell. A big hatch makes working easier at the expense of strength, a small hatch, well my banana fingers have difficulties. All require an aperture compensation. By the way I made a mistake on the drafting for former position 5. When doing the profiles I think I have made a mistake in the potions of the template contour position, hence the former line. I bodged a correction, did not bother with my former contour view. Feed back and suggestions on the way forward will be appreciated.

I was aware that that the issues have been going from about 2015. What has changed and continues to change is the breadth and scope. 2015 was just the opening shots. The shear scope of the questions, the expected responses indicates this is the beginning of bigger issues. Just because some say that some belief in conspiracies, does not mean there is not a conspiracy. Although I do not see this as a conspiracy, I see the development of policy and regulation for the future. My main view, is what the BMFA are engaged in, is a continuous struggle to minimise the impacts on us. Most of us do not understand the ramifications that the survey questions indicate could be coming down the track to us. To believe what ever is agreed in the short term is not the end. It would be naïve to think so, as others have said, it is the beginning, of a continuing process (change is always with us), that appears to be gathering speed and momentum.

I have partaked in the CAA survey, which I found to be quite involved, requiring a lot of reading. It was and probably is still true that I am far from understanding all of the proposal, and potential issues as referenced. Some of the issues raised such as overflying crowds, individuals and properties, hints at some radical departures from what is presently thought acceptable. I did come to a view that the origins and scope of the areas highlighted within the survey, have less to do with the CAA, probably either the UK Civil Service, after a suggestion to the relevant Government Minister. There is more than a hint that the process is conjunction with the EU. I did read presently that the good Baroness (the one who seemed intent on causing us problems in the resent past) is still active, now within a civil service department, that has interests in this area. This left me thinking why, more than probably driven by the prize of commercialisation of the airspace sub 400 foot via logistic and survey drones (in all their shapes and guises) by commercial operators. In that context we are but a nuisance to those seeking to develop this area, that is Governments and Commercial Operators. The CAA is possibly more sympathetic to our position in that we are not a problem, in the way we operate, as a present day safety, noise or intrusion issue to the public or property. Drones/quads have come a long way in a very short period of time from some presently the size of insects to others that resemble light aircraft. The operations that are undertaken are wide ranging. Their capabilities ever increasing. What is affordable to industry as an issue , will be very different to us hobbyist. I think that the BMFA and some others have a tough long term fight on our behalf, that is just beginning.

That did not seem to be how the article with respect to selling second hand goods read. That you have a limit to how much you can sell, without paying tax, is how it was written.

It is interesting that some suspect that HK pay no legally incurred tax in the UK. Reading in the news paper this weekend that HM Revenue and Taxes is pursuing those who sell clothing on sites such as Minted (I believe is one site quoted) for VAT, for as little as a couple of items in a tax year. In the belief or suspicion that they are selling second hand items, on the basis this could exceed their total of £1,000 a year allowance for such sales. I must admit i was I was unaware that there was such a limit for selling your unwanted items. Now should we worry about modellers selling high end radios, engines or kits, that had purchased, having paid the required tax at the time. Now having to potentially paying a second amount of tax? I just cannot see HK not paying what is legally required.

Today has been the first day that it has been anywhere near flyable here for some time (perhaps 2-3 months), either far to much wind , rain, hail. Today is far to cold for me, also we have ice, here by the coast (approx. 200yards to the beach between 250 yards and a mile or so to the sea, dependant on the state of the tide). If it were not for the airfields NFZ I would have gone to the beach, although 200-300 yards out from High Tide, I would just be outside both NFZ. Then the risk is of being another casualty of the incoming tide. Here's hoping for some better weather as I view it.

Hmmm, I built my model sometime 2018-19. It is 1/4 scale, is Miss Cassy? If not it is another of Peters designs. I had thought I had seen it as a RCM&E free plan. I have just noticed, the plan Peter gave me was for electric power. Probably/possibly a light weight version of Miss Cassy?

Peters comment about changes rang a bell. My miss deeds was initially built and flown without a UC. I flew from a meadow back then. Later I moved area and club, it uses a mowed grass strip. I then added a UC. By rhea I H=had misplaced the plan, I think, anyway, the CG was placed at 30%. The model was uncontrollable, although landed in one piece. At this point I contacted Peter. His reply was along the lines, om semi-scale models he placed the CG at 20 or maybe 25%, I do not remember with clarity. The gist of it is, now at the PM position, the model is once more a pussy cat. The CG change was by accident, But does go to show, to expect the unexpected, when not sure. The good news is that both are expected to fly, sometime this summer. I continue to improve the larger version. Bt the way, the wheels diameter are non scale, as full size are more befitting a child's push chair, just nio suitable fore a grass, not a bowling green.

My version of Cassutt is almost certainly "Miss Casey". It was built from a tiled plan by Peter. I finished my model as Outlaw. One thing worth mentioning is that a very large pilot head is required. The full size is tiny, one full size crashed it was thought due to the pilots head hitting the top of the cockpit, with his head (could not fit a standard helmet as used in racing) knocking him unconscious. It also appears that their are often differences in the fuz width. I think that the standard width was a minimum 24". That many pilots had to operate some controls by crossing one hand across the cabin as usual means of operation. As for my free plan, it will still be in the mag, not a clue as to the month or year, of hand.

If you want a larger Cassutt than Miss Deeds, the free plan of the larger version (by Peter) is almost perfect, all you need to do is widen the body to scale proportions. Although I think Peter wanted to make something that was more of a Sports model, the wing is pretty OK although I seem to remember that the tailplane was larger in area than scale (no bad thing in my opinion and leads to better handling). It was just the body that I concentrated on, It is about 6" wide at shoulder level, at the base it is very narrow. The structure I used was as drawn by Peter. I just accept that it is not scale as some see it, as the original was a tubular frame work. I am no longer sure about the wing, Peter may have had an open structure rear of the spar, with cap strips. In my case it was all sheeted. In a way this is neared to scale in that many full size Cassutt had ply wood sheeted wing, using stock sheet size. Then again many Cassutt used GF crescent wings. Why sheet, marginally stiffer, also I often do not film cover, preferring dope and tissue. The thing is Peters wing is more than adequate. As with many of Peters designs, they are amenable to adaptation, whilst retaining the essence of the original model design, and IMO more importantly fly well, for some one like me that just likes doing circuits, the odd roll and if appropriate a loop. Personally I have never got the concept that improved skill is only achieved by aerobatics, be it pattern, or Lomcevak or similar.

What is known about my Profi (I think that is what is written), I purchased from Roland Scott, bottom right. Now I am surprised how oil/muck covered these IC motors are It seems to be made extensively from "bar Stock" including the crank case, including the crank case. As an aside, I miss going to Steve Webbs, having a chat with I assume Steve's dad, seemed to be always in attendance on the first floor, attending to mail order, with a veritable fleet of FF models ( I think he had built), hanging from the ceiling. To far now to go, although one of the few model shops I expect to continue for a long time.

I am hoping that it is submitted to RCM&E. It would be a mistake to turn down the opportunity to keep many of the mags traditional modellers happy. As an early builder of the larger Cussutt by Peter (albeit with a widened scale body), it was not just an enjoyable, practical build, as a flying model it is vey good. A couple of pictures of Peters Cassutt designs (the red one was finished shortly after the pictures were taken. Plus something similar, a redesigned Aeronca Sedan. I need a companion, as many older modellers, these traditional build and formats, float my boat I totally agree with all the comments of the model (which are obviously all good), we all want the opportunity to build one.

A significant issue for the generally accepted/defined traditional model aircraft flyers is that we number so few, probably about 27-28,000 as BMFA members. Within our small grouping, our interests, how and what we fly are many and varied. As a group we have more in common with each other than the differences. With respect to drone flyers, they generally do not fit easily within the traditional model aircraft flyer. Now that the majority of drones are purchased as a complete airframe, incorporating a level of electronics and transducers that at present are at a level the majority of aero modellers see as alien to how we operate and at present wish to operate. In general these guys are in love with the modern world. These guys interest and histories, separate them in general from most traditional aero modellers From the perspective of the BMFA, their money, that comes from Membership in itself is welcome (I am sure). Also boosting the numbers that the BMFA officially represents makes the organisation more relevant to officialdom. At a practical level, I suspect the range of interests and operating scenarios is so wide that effective representation is challenging, often interests will be divergent. Whose interests will predominate? I could not help but read and note a news item about an unauthorised drone flight that was at variance of many of the CAA regulations, during the Coronation event. In essence what occurred is so dissimilar to how any of the present and historic aeromodellers operate to differentiate us from many drone operators. The drone flier has been identified, trialled and sentenced. In essence what occurred is representative of a reoccurring theme by a group of drone fliers, how large would be a guess by me, yet reoccurs. I am sure that more regulations are heading down the tracks towards us, some drone fliers are not helping out cause. A real issue will not only be the issue of our compliance, but almost certain increased cost, linked into the onerousness that could be the cause of many of us deciding eneough is enough, and take up crown green bowling in preference.