Erfolg

Are the two systems (2.7) compatible to operation simultaneously on the same site? Where are the systems from the other big names i.e. JR, Sanwa, Hitex? If one is better than an other, how will we know and will it matter? I am reminded of the claim that Rolls Royce is the best car in the World. Thereafter being questioned, is it the fastest car? has it the best road holding? is it the most economical. Until there is broad agreement to which attributes matter and they have been measured, I suspect the Best RC system will be a discussion without substance, possibly with some prejudice. Regards Erfolg

David I posted the thread to establish how many people have more than a passing interest in older designs. A small number of people within the club I am a member have shown some level of interest. Given that the club has a possibly one of the largest active free flight sections within the UK, the number of similar models is disappointing (none I thik). I guess the low level of performance is disappointing to RC flyers, and RC, a total aberration to free flighters. Having used modest power and battery capacity, I find that the model goes up wind slowly (+15 mph wind speed), down wind near the stall (pitch and power possibly to low to accelerate the model). None the less it is fun. Strangely you do learn quite a lot about model design and characteristics from this type. Planning your flight and landing is also essential in any thing above a light breeze. Regards Erfolg

I understand the satisfaction that comes from building and or designing your own model. However I do believe these ARTF models have a lot to offer us builders. Have you noticed that a lot of the models that they emulate are of subjects which would have been considered the province of the expert both to build and fly. Typically Sukhoi, Spitfires etc. How do they do it? In my opinion the structures are extremely light, if plywood (which seems a preferred material) it is mostly removed, the models have very good strength to weight ratios. Additionally the designs incorporate effective amounts of washout, aerofoil sections etc. In essence these are good flyers, which do not disintegrate on the first poor landing. Quite a contrast with some of the overweight/over engineered lead sheds I have tried to fly. I am building a AFTF (so the advert said) model of the Gee bee R1. It has taken me 2 weeks to date, with another week to complete (in my estimation). Rather reminiscent of the those balsa shell Jetex models of the 60's. I will have some pride in this model when finished and flying. Just another perspective, of a modeller. Regards Erfolg

A little of what has happened has got lost or confused in the telling. The preceding picture shows the Lipo charger. I have charged both packs, the Lipo charger did not beep to indicate termination. It always has in the past. The balancer has somtimes gone to a solid red Diode (indicating completion)in the past, without the charger indicating completed charge. In this set of instances neither has indicted completion, although the balancer has indicated it is almost there (flashing red diode). Where a solid red indicates completion I then tried using it without the balancer. It was at this point that it almost immediatly registed a charged battery (12.53 & 12.55). The measured values are after the charger indicating completion. The problem seems to be connected to the Lipo balancer in the circuit. Sorry about the confusion. Regards Erfolg

I have measured the two batteries I have had on charge, results as follows: a) 800mA, 12.53v b) 1500ma, 12.55v both figures fall within the range quoted. So it appears they are charged. I guess the issues are, 1) When to diconnect if the charger does not signal completion 2) Is the balancer doings its job. I must thank you all for your help and advice. Often think that the exchange of information and ideas is what these sites are about for us users. Best regards Erfolg

It it might be an idea to have a Furun section on "Old type models". I have attached to images of the same model, before modification and after. Why modify you ask, simple, the unmodified model flew briefly like a plumiting brick. After modification, it flies as on rails. Simply, other peoples experiences and solutions could have saved some heartache. before after the model is a Vic Smeed Tomboy, with rounded wing tips, thinner body Regards Erfolg

Love to build a Multiplex Fun Jet. It would enably me to compare the best German Foam Technology, with the Far Eastern products. Is it realy better. In addition I would be able to experience a powered flying wing. Give us a kit mister, I can fly that! Erfolg

I have started a plan for a Heinkel 219. It has a number of attractions for me. a) All variants have an essentially slab sided fuselage. b) Wing plan form is quite simple especially the Hutter 211 variant. Also big wing high altitude variant built. c) the wing is well out of the way when landing, reducing potential for damage (do not use undercarriage). d) The simple rounded top and bottom are well suited for production in Blue Foam (when I get some more). e) Very simple canopy. against a) Engine nacelle cross section huge compared to body. If high powered electric propulsion had not become economically viable, I would not consider twins or other combination of multi. But it has. The Arado 234 is also viable, although reservations abot glass nose. When I built my Bf 109T I found that if I joined (to the side of fuselage) the 1/16 ply side re-enforcements using impact adhesive with a transverse rolling action I could get a good curve where bulkheads could do the long term holding. Together with blue foam a good fuselage should be possible.

I have started a plan for a Heinkel 219. It has a number of attractions for me. a) All variants have an essentially slab sided fuselage. b) Wing plan form is quite simple especially the Hutter 211 variant. Also big wing high altitude variant built. c) the wing is well out of the way when landing, reducing potential for damage (do not use undercarriage). d) The simple rounded top and bottom are well suited for production in Blue Foam (when I get some more). e) Very simple canopy. against a) Engine nacelle cross section huge compared to body. If high powered electric propulsion had not come economically viable, I would not consider twins or other combination of multi. But it has. The Arado 234 is also viable, although reservations abot glass nose. When I built my Bf 109T I found that if I joined (to the side of fuselage) the 1/16 ply side re-enforcements using impact adhesive with a transverse rolling action I could get a good curve where bulkheads could do the long term holding. Together with blue foam a good fuselage should be possible.

To some extent I can see the frustation of both the model magazines and us the reader. This web site is I think, intended to get an insight to modellers, wishes and what they actualy do. If you look at the numbers of discussions on the various folders you may draw some conclusions on what realy interests us as a group. Yet If i go to my local flying field it does not appear to fit the apparent breakdown. Most models are powered gliders, 95% ARTFs, there are some foamies of various types (low powered Graupner/multiplex etc.) These gliders vary from the mighty "Tracker" and Swifts to 400 paper bags. Very few scale, although most people have one. Most have no undercarriage due to the nature of the field. 50% are Spitfires, the rest a ragbag of models, Tucarnos, F16, Vampire, strange swedish or danish biplane. I my self have a Bf 109T (48"), A Ta152H (36") and a Gee Bee R2 (under construction, foam kit). Yet these are a minority. I to would like to see plans for some interesting scale models i.e, Heston Racer, Martin Baker 5, Heinkel Uhu (or Hutter 211), Dornier Phiel. All for brushless motors. Yet most people want Spitfires, Hurricanes and Typhoons I guess I will eventually design and build them myself, until then I will put up with the squadrons of Spitfires, in all marks and sizes (perhaps a Spiteful for once). I have attached my Ta 152H yet to fly. Regards Erfolg

I have used the JP Perkins charger without the lipo balancer. The unit immediatly registers charging complete. I guess the issue is with the overlander product. Their technical people will not be available until Monday. Regards Erfolg

I charge my lipo batteries with the following set up: A) “ JP Ultra Power”, switching power supply B) A “JP Li-Po 2000 Professional” C) “Overlander Poly Pro Lithium Polymer Battery Balancer Guard” I am charging a selection of 3S Lipos. According to the instructions either the Li_po 2000 should announce the completion of charging by a warning or the Balancer go to a solid red light. In some instances this does not happen with either piece of equipment. The Li-po guard may start flashing intermittently. However after 3 hrs. I will switch of. Does anyone know if there is a problem, or may be, just assume I have a fully charged battery, if the guard starts to flash. Rather than wait for the charger to say it is completed its task. Regards Erfolg

My test of PVA (Evo-stick wood adhesive) is now complete. It does sucessfully join extruded polystyrene, joint strength is better than parent material. Thanks for the help Erfolg Now what is RC-56?

Whilst digging the foundations to my kitchen extension ( this one will be over four times the size of the existing extension, which was twice the size of original kitchen, wife tells me everyone now has a large kitchen, except us!). Any way the point is I was thinking of my latest model, and the need for a new receiver. I then thought why do I not use my Sanwa receiver. To this I thought because it will not work with my Futaba? Where is this going you are asking yourself, well I use a Futaba 6ae something or other. The important feature is that my Micron, Weston receivers all work with my Futaba gear. Thus I get flexibility via the Futaba route. The other thing is 6 may not be many memories, but is far better than the one of my previous gear. Futaba Gold, Sanwa Club, steam powered Waltron (still works though). The one thing I do not like are the digital trims, particularly on elevator. My gear may not be the best but it ticks enough boxes to be a very convenient to use system. Nearly everyone seems to cater for Futaba Regards Erfolg

avid You are most probably correct. in that crystal tape appears to be invisible tape (I really should have written "scotch crystal clear tape"). It is used to hinge the ailerons. The "Pica Gluit" is more of a problem, it is being used to stick to pieces of "extruded polystyrene" together (fuselage to tailplane). Every where else Foam Safe CA is specified. I have never used PVA to join polystyrene. I will try PVA on some scrap. Thanks for the help Regards Erfolg

I am building an American kit. I am having some difficulty with some of the products used: as follows a) what is crystal tape? is it cellotape? b) what sought of adhesive is Gluit Hellllp! Erfolg

Jetsome One of the limitations of exchanged information at the club field is: a) On failure of low cost products, "well you only get what you pay for". b) On expensive brands, "Did you arrive hard, at any time" or "I have one, never any problem". Often glossed over is the situation where many other club members have the low cost item, with no problem and on the other hand there may be only one other member with expensive gear, in the best model, that has never been flown. We club members are far from being without prejudice, nor do we find it easy to be objective. Regards Erfolg

David I hope you are reading this thread. Contrary to popular opinion I think that we do need some technical insight. Without a basic technical understanding, it is difficult to be objective about a) What can sensibly be achieved b) What matters c) the limit (what it is possible to do, versus how things are). d) trends It is not by accident that the Czechs, Germans, Dutch seem to be leaders in technical matters and products (in modelling etc). I have mixed views on measuring, torque, speed, resolution etc. I think most of the suppliers claims are probably true. Issues regarding durability, impact performance, failure rates are hardly ever covered, yet these aspects matter to me, when assessing value for money. I I think I may be asking to much from a magazine, you are not after all a testing laboratory. I still believe some attempt at servos is potentially worth while. Other areas which could be explored are a) Brushed/brushless speed controllers. How they work, typically how they are built, differences from one brand/concept to another, limitations in performance. b) Brushless Motors. Design, number of magnets, number of teeth, laminations in stator, stator diameter versus length, etc. number of winds Regards Erfolg

It seems that we aeromodellers must all be broadly similar interest. Cycling was my interst in the intervening years. Used to do 70-80 miles on club runs, I tried a 20 mile run recently to the model shop and thought I had died. Totally dehydrated, no water left, the magic bananna did nothing. Electric gliders are not in my opinion inferior to the bungee/towline. You can limit your motor run. Just makes operation far easier. In competions as you know, the tow was probably the most important part of the competion. A poor launch putting you at a servere disadvantage. Next was the spot landing, particularly if the slot was flown out, or everyone was landing together. Cheap servos, have brought crow braking which seems to simplfy that part of the regime. Competion gliding seems to be effectively dead (Barcs,electro slot). Just try one of your old comp machines with electric, I think you will be pleasantly suprised. Regards Erfolg

Marc Me to! My lat off has been about 15 years. I have similar problems to yourself, what were complete airframes 15 years previously, now have parts missing. The other issue is that I do not remember how the planes were. As is the case with Algebra. My standard set up had become, a closed loop to a Control Line type bellrank, with a push rod up o a point in front of the pivot on an all moving tail. So I thought. The AMTP has the real advantage, in that the drag is minimised irrespective of speed and the initial set up if not quite right has no long term drag penalty. With this model it is clearly a conventional tail plane with elevator. A 20 inch span with 4-5 inch cord would provide, approx 80-100 area is approx 10%. I have used one of the formulas given in publications which indicates 77 (I guess it is the long moment arm about 3.5, that does it). I do wish I new what dimensions they really were. AS for EMP I have not seen them at all, or referred to. The model scene is different, most modellers seem to fly Czech models, who would have flown Algebras. These models appear to be almost finished, generally to a high standard. They are of course electric. I have converted two 2m Sagittas to electric (used to think that the 2 Sag, was rather limited to the 100 inch. I have been told that the bigger gliders, 120 inch, can be kept up all day with electric. I certainly find that my small gliders have incredible climb rates on Brushless and LIPOs. I wish you well with your return, certainly have found my own rewarding to date. Regards Erfolg

It is a subject that is of interest to every single aero modeller, I would have thought. I think there are a large number of difficulties for RCM&E, as follows a) The shear number of servos, from Big names to budget. b) The number of categories c) The cost (£) if they are to purchased, the cost (£ or time) if they are to be donated/lent by the trade. d) Devising a relevant set of criteria e) The resources necessary to test f) How to present the results in a useful manner g) Like it or not, ensuring that advertisers are not hacked of, if their products fair less well than they would like. h)Presenting an assessment that modellers think is useful. I love the idea, but for the author something of a poisoned chalice, if the politics are not absolutely perfect. So will it happen? I am not holding my breath (please prove me wrong, for the work to be done without fear). Regards Erfolg

I have started construction on a “Fantastic Models Gee Bee R1” Although having been a model builder for “to many years” from Balsa sticks to Fibre Glass Moulding and Foam etc. This is a first for me a polystyrene foam model. If this is a typical ARTF kit then I do wonder. Any way my first problem a) What is RC-56 adhesive b) When sanding for the leading edge spruce spa, doe it 1) Fit half way into the foam LE 2) Fit behind the leading edge Although there is a photograph I cannot quite see clearly Any other tips on this model will be much appreciated. Regards Erfolg

I have a Guillows P47 Thunderbolt Kit I would like to build it as a Electric (Brushless+Lipo) R.C. The kit looks to be reminiscent of the rubber powered jobs I vaguely remember in the 60s. Has anyone built this model as an electric R.C. model? I would like to know how you built it and what you learnt (or what would you would do differently). Conceptually I am tempted to plank the fuselage with 1/16 balsa, instead of just tissue. But I have concerns about weight, the fuselage being so rotund. Also I would like to have an access hatch on the top of the fuselage. In the case of the wing the multi stringer spar arrangement, with no shear webs between spars causes me concern. With the offset between lowered and upper spars there appears to be no simple way of providing the feature. Again 1/16 sheet would appear to be desirable. The aerofoil looks a bit strange to me, pretty flat bottomed with maximum thickness well back (reminiscent of the 60s laminar foil sections). I guess it works, any comments At 30 inch span weight would appear to be a big issue. The design of the wing has no washout, at least indicated on the plan (as far as I can see). It would appear to necessary, does anyone have comments or experience? I await your comments Erfolg

I understand (from speaking with a Kyrobi representative)that the majority of high discharge Lipos go into high end, portable power tools (circular saws, drill/screwdrivers). If this is so, does anyone know the C rating of the battery relative to the C rate used? How many cycles are obtained to failure and what is the failure mode. Regards Erfolg

Alistair A further thought, the collet that is part of my conventional (3mm) prop driver, is significant different to the Perkins and Graupner/Aeronauht collets. It is of smaller maximum dia. Because of this, pulls through more, not clamping and secondly appears to be a slightly steeper taper. So I guess there is little standardisation from one manufacturer to the next. Regards Erfolg