John Emms 1

Thanks Percy, my last post took some time to write, and you beat me to it! The next question was in terms of engine to free flight model size, and your Spitfire in the 42" Ladybird is a big help. I had been wondering about that size of model with a .049. I did have a Spitfire that was last in a glider power pod about 25 years ago, and has gone the way of a lot of my older model gear during numerous moves - it would be nice to have the Spitfire back!

Hi Piers, I have seen the Pou flying, and radio assist in that model seems like a sensible proposition. I have the plan on the dining table right now, and there is plenty of room in there for radio, which I assume would be single channel on that huge rudder. I also see the reasoning behind enlarging this very practical Pou. I was REALLY pleased to have success in trimming Oini, as without dihedral (but with a swept wing for dihedral effect), slight changes on the trim tab made a massive difference to the rate of turn. Once Oini is trimmed, it is a very nice model, and Cox .020s are going through E-Bay at sensible prices. There is a twice size Oini, and it is one of the very nicest RC sports models ever, called Denis Bryant's Dactyl - actually the other way round, Oini is a half size Dactyl. Dactyl is on my list of models to do again, but as electric, either original size for 4S, or reduced to about 55" as a 3S model. I do have a couple of electric motors and controllers that would work with the Pou, but then I need a different size of battery to the four different sizes I use already, an electronic timer, and I assume, some kind of switch in the bottom of the fus to kill the power system should the model come down early. But if I go up in size, I guess I could use the 2S 2200 that I have quite a lot of. Having put an ESC in there with a battery, then we might as well have a receiver to control the motor - and a rudder servo takes up very little space... When I heard at the "chuck and duck" that radio assist was acceptable, thoughts did turn to the idea of connecting the ESC to the Rx, as well as the rudder. How much bigger on the Pou to carry a 160g 2S 2200 battery? Would we need to go 1 to 1,5cc size? In old fashioned terms, 400 is a direct replacement for a .049, and 600 is roughly .09 or 1,5cc There are two great joys for me in this hobby, one is sticking bits of balsa together, and the other is having a model that looks decent, and works properly. The sheer simplicity of a model and a can of diesel, with no batteries has a real appeal. My idea of going with the Redfin .049 turning an 8" prop was that it may be acceptable in terms of noise when launched in the middle of the common. Hence my seeking advice about engines that may possibly provide an acceptable noise level, and the type of model that will be easier to trim than Oini.

I taught a now passed friend to fly RC so that he could fly the models that he couldn't fly when he was young (J60 etc). Moving on a decade or two, among my other interests, I have a desire to fly some of the 50s and 60s sports free flight models that I couldn't fly when I was young. I did manage to have some success with the Aeromodeller free plan Oini tailless that needed the full power of the Cox .020, and a K&P powered conversion of a KK rubber power model. I have two large common available locally, Chipping Sodbury Common and Westerleigh Common, so I don't feel the need for radio assist, but they have houses on the borders, so I want to keep the noise down. I am thinking of starting with a Redfin .049 powered Cardinal or Rene Stamm Pou Du Ceil sports flee (designed for Cox .049). Are my ideas sound, or would I be better looking at other (perhaps larger?) engines or models? Thanks, John

Posted by Denis Watkins on 16/09/2017 18:37:17: The most certain way is a bench press/drill stand With no drill in the chuck Use the press to push the drive pin out Works every time with the force perpendicular Dennis, unfortunately that fact is not true, it doesn't work every time. I could probably find every letter from the disgruntled ex-customers who have tried it, and expected me to buy them a new motor. I have stopped giving away free motors... HTH, John

DON'T!!!! The Axi rotor is assembled with the shaft, and then checked for true running. Any rotor and shaft assembly that are not within limits become static display motors, or are discarded. Bottom line is that if you manage to move the shaft without damage to the motor, the rotor could be slightly out of line, and the motor run inefficiently, if it will run at all. The correct answer is to buy the correct radial mount set for your motor. Please do e-mail Model Motors for the same answer (or something similar in Czech English). BTW, the shafts are held in place with Loctitie, and it takes gentle heat to replace the shaft - though that is still not recommended. Regards, John Edited By John Emms 1 on 18/11/2017 10:16:37

Hi, My knowledge of Spektrum is very limited, but the text for the international site says that DSM2 and DSMX transmitters and receivers are interoperable. As I understand it, the issue was that the channel hogging DSM2 is no longer acceptable in the full channel hopping EU (hence the introduction of DSMX), so the newer and current EU transmitters have the channel hogging DSM2 capability disabled. My DX6i has the ability to make it solely DSM2, solely DSMX, or have it auto detecting. Is your Tx set to only operate DSMX? It would be worth having a look in the setup. Hope that helps, John

Anyone reading all my recent posts would be excused for thinking I have too many projects on the go! On a positive, I am quite a way through my second kit build in 2 months. This has been on the bucket list since it was published in 1968. The Pou Du Ciel by Rene Stamm is designed for Cox Baby Bee. The Baby Bee is available in UK, but I have a desire to use diesel. The right thing to do is use PAW, either .55 or .8cc, but a very attractive option is the Cox Baby Bee Diesel that would fit straight in, and be very easy to adjust thrust angles. So, covering. I have experience with standard Solarfilm and my DC Spitfire of old - not good... Is polyester film okay with diesels? (Profilm, Oracover, Polyester Solarfilm). If not, what is the best/easiest covering for small diesel powered models? I have covered with tissue and nylon, but would rather avoid that if possible. All advice is much appreciated! Thanks, John

As I said earlier, the original model flies incredibly well as designed, on what is really quite modest power (I would have been happy with a 1.5cc in mine). Talk of taking out the dihedral, sheeting to make the wings "scale" (the wings are actually higher aspect ratio, and the fuselage longer than scale), and adding ailerons all starts to sound like this could be something a lot less than originally intended. For all of these mods, I would start with a clean sheet of wall lining paper, and use the kit structure as a guide to making a scale model - and as an added bonus, original "vintage" Veron kits are going through E-Bay at decent prices.

Thanks Davey P. And 1l of diesel goes a LONG way!

"Nitrex 15" 15% nitro was the fuel for little Cox engines, and results in easy starting of even the little .020. Could I ask a question?  I have bought a Galahad kit, and that is either going to be electric, or retro diesel.  How easy is it to buy diesel fuel?  Edited By John Emms 1 on 12/11/2017 10:49:38

I built one in Germany, but that would be going back to the 1970s. The model is an excellent design as is, and works very well as R/E. I think mine came out at very little more than 1kg, and was very aerobatic on an OS15. There is also a hatch designed for radio access, so using two HS81 size servos would allow access for batteries in what is intended as the radio/tank bay. In terms of power, I would be looking at around 200W. The model was clearly intended as a "sports scale" DV111, and yes, the wing is very light weight construction...

Posted by Andrew Moore 7 on 07/11/2017 11:12:02: Those Riechard gliders really look the part. Do you know much about the make/quality etc etc ?? Seem to be fairly easy to get hold of Hi Andrew, I know the range quite well. We used to buy batches £10 000 at time. The designer and producer, Mr Reichard, is highly respected in the Czech model industry, and I have great respect for his designs (I take his Okapi out at every flying field visit). Primarily designed for the Czech home market, the models do not need to be equipped with any expensive servos, or geared motors. Our models came first and second in the first BMFA 200W/kg competition, and I am not sure if it was Reichard Champion that came first or second. We found that the foam wing versions of the same models (foam wing Champion is Svist) are no heavier, and thermal equally well, but our Svist has regularly dived to speed before doing a four point roll, low, along the runway. My strong advice is go with the foam wing versions of a given Reichard model which will provide a decent thermal performance AND be a nicely performing "Warmliner" - term coined by Mike Hines at Hobby Lobby for the foam wing Sport version of the Filip 600, also on my all time favourite list of models. The Reichard models use a lightweight epoxy glass fuselage that has just the right strength to weight ratio, with a little flexibility. The foam wing versions use a very light foam core, with very light sanded balsa skin (for finish) that is bonded with epoxy glass for excellent strength and rigidity. The plywood fittings for battery trays etc use the best quality ply, and are cleanly cut. All fitting are MP Jet. Unlike foam models, the glass fuselage and Oracover film on the flying surfaces, can look like new in 10 years time. I am on a modelling budget, but it is a little flexible, and for this type of aerobatic soarer, I will only buy Reichard. I hope that is of some help, John

There was a mention of Reichard, which really do put the Chinese produced gliders into a corner (Horizon etc). If you can find a foam wing Reichard at a reasonable price, that would be my choice. The foam wings are no heavier than the built up wing versions (and may be even lighter), but the light foam, epoxy glass, and light balsa construction is a whole lot more capable at higher speeds.

So, a few years later! Last week I became the proud owner of a Ben Buckle Galahad kit. I have to say the plan is first rate, and the kit contents look good (on lifting the lid). The dining table has an ElectriCub 2 on it at the moment, and the Galahad is way down the building queue, but may just jump the queue! After my first Galahad experience in the 80s, this one will have the correct dihedral, and be electric powered. The original OS 15 gave very good performance, and I am looking at comparable electric power. I know what I would need for .049, .25, .40, .60, .90, 120, and even 40cc equivalent power, but I never sorted out a direct replacement for a .15! I am guessing around 65W x 3lb for 200W would be sensible. I have 2 BNIB Astro 035G (175W on 2S 3300 with 11x6), I also have a BNIB Astro 15G for 3S (maximum of 250W on 3S), or I could build in a 36mm clamp mount to take a range of 500 and 600 size motors, both 2S and 3S. Other questions for me: the clamp mount could go on the original design engine mounting plate, or I could redesign the nose to be a "real" electric model with the motor being fitted behind a front motor mounting plate. And, is the model small enough to use the wing as a battery hatch, or do I make the canopy and front deck removeable as a battery hatch? Experience tells me that if I make things too complex, or too impractical, I lose interest! There is a local Galahad that was running around 400W (Mega 22/30/3E with 11x7) until I gave the owner a smaller prop! Playing with ideas at the moment, but it could become reality pretty quickly!

ROTO are also absolutely top notch, but can I make a correction to my last post? I NEED the Laser 180 Petrol!

I think there is a very clear difference between the industrial engines designed to run for hour up on hour like Komatsu Zenoah (I have one), and the lighter engines designed to produce maximum power for our use. The people I know who are using OS are very pleased with them, the supplied silencer fits easily into most models, and is VERY effective, but should anything go wrong, it is going to cost. Interesting that the Czech distributor sells considerably more OS, than the Chinese range that they also distribute..... Having worked with MVVS, I have no hesitation in saying that for a new engine, I would be looking first to MVVS, or perhaps looking for a used, but cared for, MVVS/older generation Evolution. The factory support (also in the EU, so there is free movement) is excellent should that be required, and does not cost an arm and a leg! Unfortunately Krumsheide did not work for one of our customers, and caused me considerable agro - if only he had used the MVVS pipe designed for, and tested with, the engine he bought........

For an electric equivalent of the Merco 61, you are looking in the 5S area, though the now popular 6S power systems could be underpropped to bring them "into line", and the late 60s, early 70s aerobatic models that we are looking at for the Merco 61, use what we would now consider to be very small props. Many still don't appear to realise that what many motors now "say on the tin" isn't the power you are reasonably putting into the motor - so a "750W motor" might only be used sensibly in the 450 to 500W region. Use test data to decide what works with the prop sizes that need to be used.

I ran one of my Mercos with the very effective P&R muffler, BUT vibration wore away some of the exhaust stub. If there is an aftermarket silencer that screws on, great, but I would be looking out for the black "Peakpower muffler" coming up in lots on E-Bay, or at swapmeets. On the running issue: as supplied, air bleeds down the needle valve screw thread leading to unreliable throttling. The needle valve is totally sealed by cutting a short piece of fuel tubing (about 3mm), and sliding it over the thread of the needle valve.

As Chris says, I can't remember a single kit that I didn't adapt in some way to meet my own requirements. Is this supposed to be about some sort of progression? Heck, I have models up to 9kg, with completed model prices around £1500 (mere peanuts to some!), but two of my most recent purchases are kits for the Micro Aces Fokker D7 and Ben Buckle (Mercury) Galahad. As an aside, yes, people do dabble in different areas: when I started racing model boats, and we started selling boats, I was amazed by the number of familiar faces from model flying, either doing both aircraft and boats, or given up the challenges of model flying, and moved to boats - which reminds me, I have Sandra's boat to finish.

Posted by Paul james 8 on 23/10/2017 22:37:55 You've got me confused now....I thought the red Pup was listed as an Albatross?? I am sure you are right Paul, I can't access E-Bay at work

Posted by Paul james 8 on 23/10/2017 12:31:56: Mein Gott!!!! Which dastardly deedster has made a Flair Puppeteer and fitted German crosses!! Can't see the D3 on his listings, just the two Pups? EXACTLY! He (or she) is saying that the red Pupeteer is a scale model of a Fokker D111. I would have really struggled to find a German WW1 bipe with a radial engine, and I am sure the D111 must be the only one - and with wing warping too.

Hi Tony, If it's trying to pull out of your hands at 45 degrees, all will be fine. At 40A, I would be using 3300s, but half decent 2200s should be able to cope with 40A. Is the power reduced by 10% after 20 seconds? That would be quite normal. The ESC just needs to be capable of the current that is being drawn, and not being used as a current limiting device. Classic ways of damaging an ESC are reverse connecting the battery, and having a poor connection between motor and controller. Re the launching. I have seen EDF hand launched, but the super safe method is using a bungee to launch from a ramp. I have seen wallpaper paste tables set at about 15 degrees work really well for reliable launches. Hope that helps, John

I have mostly built from kits, partly because I started model flying 50 years ago, partly because I like sticking bits of balsa together, and partly because I had a large number of different addresses during my time in the Air Force. Before having to assemble ARTFs for commercial reasons, I had bought a couple of good quality ARTFs and built from plans, models that particularly appealed. At the Nats, I bought RCM&E mags with plans that fit my current battery sizes (3 and 4S 3300 - traditional .25 to .40 size), and snapped up old balsa kits that appeal (.25 to 25cc size). My dining table is now covered with an Electricub plan, and I am enjoying assembling the kit (slowly) after work. As my stock of building materials grows again (after Sandra sold them as part of the clear out!), I can see the band saw and disc sander coming back into use - as a part of making an old man very happy lol.

Hi Tony, Your figures are interesting, as with the 3600kv Mega 16EDF (16/17/2) in the Wemotec 70mm Mini Fan, we were just short of 1kg of static thrust with 3S at 40A using the intake ring, and an optimized outlet. However, historically, Mini Fan models were flying on less power than that, and your model is also lighter than a typical Mini Fan model (around 1kg). Model boats really need to be around 1:1 thrust to weight to perform well, but aeroplanes perform well on a lot less - only a tiny part of a loop is true vertical, and loops can be canted over so that none of the loop is vertical. If 4S with your system is not working because of weight, and the current draw being too much for the batteries, then something needs to change, either lower resistance batteries, or reduce to 3S. It has always struck me that the choice of wheels or not is a practical question. My only club at the moment has a tarmac runway, so it is difficult (and inconvenient for others) not to use wheels on the runway. Other clubs in the area only have grass, so a bungee launch is the answer there. Unlike a propeller, a fan does not unload, but keeps driving throughout the flight, so I doubt that wheels or not will make much difference to the flight time. No wheels will make a big difference to performance, due to lower weight and drag, particularly on lower thrust levels. My thoughts are by no means definitive, but I hope they are of some help. John

The D3, of course, has a four stroke engine, but it looks like the Pup was built purely as a static model. I was left thinking that I have seen far nicer Pupeteers, and I have flown a far nicer Pupeteer! Thinking about this shortly after I started the thread, I am convinced these descriptions are illegal, as the D111 is quite clearly nothing like a D111, and the Pupeteer was always intended as a Pup like sports model. I suspect these will end up on the wall of an upmarket pub somewhere (I always cringe when I see less than good models displayed this way), and yes, the antiques and curios market is, thankfully, very different to our own....