DH1950

Hi Shaun  Very sorry to see and hear of your 'problem'. I wrecked 2 models earlier this year, the lead up to each crash being very similar to yours - a couple of full length flights with no problems, then sudden failure (with possible failsafe) and no response to Tx control input.  In my own defence, the first crash was put down to pilot error being too far down wind at dusk(!), the second was well within our site, at a sensible altitude, and clearly indicated something seriously wrong. To cut a very long story short, involving hours of bench testing, swapping bits of known reliable kit with bits of the offending airborne set, it turned out to be the switch harness. This had been a new item just prior to the first crash. What I found was that with a fresh fully charged battery showing 5.4v, only 4.8v came out of the other side of the switch harness. Putting a part used battery showing 4.9v in the system resulted in 4.3v coming out the other side of the switch harness. With this set up, I could get the sytem to firstly glitch, then failsafe, then come back on line, then glitch etc etc. Swapping the switch harness showed a 0.1v drop across the replacement. This was all on 35meg, i.c. power, so it may not relate directly to your problem but its worth a check. Cheers Derek

Mixing own fuel. Oh, yes! Cost was the primary thing behind it. Paraffin was'free' because my dad kept a stock in the greenhouse for heating during the cold evenings. In the small town where I lived there was a motorcycle garage who would sell us Castrol R (was the R for racing?), which we mixed with some proportion of Castrol XXL. Ether was from the local chemist who happily sold it to me in quart bottles. The only time he batted an eyelid was when I asked for Amyl Nitrate. Once my mum had confirmed the intended use he would again happily sell it to me, then aged about 12/13, in quarter pint bottles. Try asking for Amyl Nitrate in a chemists now! How innocent we were. Happy days Derek

Like Eric, I was only 10 in 1960, flying F/F with a 1cc ME Heron, attempting to fly control line (!) with it which was a bit of a joke. I used to buy RCM&E when pocket money permitted and could only dream of one day being able to afford such exotica. As pointed out above, the costs then were incredibly high compared to their relative costs now. The first radio set and aircraft I ever saw was whilst flying control line (now with a PAW 2.49) at Woodvale one evening in 1963 or 64, our club being invited as guests of the Southport Club. The aircraft in question was very much radio assisted F/F, single channel on rudder, clockwork escapement driven and with the high weight of its batteries, low power from its engine, performed very marginally just above the stall speed, and had little reserve for gaining any altitude. The radio gear seemed to have been home made, possibly from one of the articles in the magazine, since it bore no manufacturers name or logos on the Tx casing. The Tx was metal cased, grey in colour, had a minimum of button.switches, and was very large and heavy. Basic though it was, I was hooked. Decision made there and then that one day I would convert to radio. The rest is history as they say. Like seeing extracts from past issues of the magazine. Keep it coming. Some of those 'old' aircraft designs are still relevant today - Astro Hog, Uproar, Sharkface etc etc. Regards Derek

Hi Eric The Spatman was the featured model in a series called 'Solo on a Shoestring' published in Radio Modeller, Feb and Mar 1986. I can supply copies of the article(s) if you wish. Regards Derek

Hi Tom You are quite right about the Flying Washboard. It was a free plan from Aeromodeller in July 1965. It was printed on the reverse side of Eric Clutton's (famous) Sharkface plan in the same issue. (A fantastic model I might add). I have the original plans, printed on orange/brown very lightweight paper which I have saved to this day. (Yes I am that old!) The Washboard plan was reproduced by courtesy of 'Flug & Modell Technik' designed by Ing. Hermann Kayser and includes build notes in the lower left hand corner. If you would like a copy of this please email back with address or tel no. and I will contact you and get a copy off to you. Regards Derek

My unbroken run of not winning continues, but hey count me in! (Never had a biplane!)

Count me in.

Hi Chris If you enter MFA Yamamoto into Google, several model shops will appear to stock the latest version of this model, and their websites will give additional details. You should check if the one being offered to you is one of the latest, or the fibreglass fuselage version. I agree with Timbo that the latter could prove a little heavy. I learned on a 'Mk1' back in the early 1980's, traditional kit, used an Enya 35, weighed in at under 5lbs, extremely robust structure. Coincidentaly, the only item to eventually survive the many 'heavy landings', was the dural main undercarriage. This has been recycled into my current build of the RCM&E Bushwhacker.  I have a copy of the RCM&E test of the Mk2 Yamamoto (kit) from the late 1980's. Have not got a scanner, but can post copy to you if you don't mind giving your address. Cheers Derek

Hi Adam Sorry to hear you having problems. Unfortunately I had just the same sorts of problems with a Galahad kit. Bought it following Alex Whittackers review a couple of years back. In short, nothing fitted, and it was not small errors, but quite large discrepancies between the cut parts and the plan. I had to resort to cutting parts from my stock of sheet balsa where undersize parts were evident. The wing was particularly troublesome.Very close examination of the uncovered model in Alex's review revealed that he had resorted to some of the same 'fixes' to make it all go together. I usually enjoy the build process of a traditional kit but not in this case. Completed, the model flies well. I have reverted to building from plans, because that is where I started from many years ago, it is cheaper, and if it goes wrong there is only one person to blame. It is a real shame that a British kit manufacturer is basically shooting themselves in the foot.

Hi Graham, Not a criticism but some errors on the Bushwhacker plan which I hope do not catch out others (Guess how I found out!). 1. Tailplane/elevator/fin/rudder all stated as 1/8 inch thick, plan drawn as 3/16 inch thick 2. Fuselage formers F2 & F3 stated as 3/32 inch thick, plan drawn as 3/16 inch thick. In fact I only cut the fin from the wrong thickness sheet before it dawned on me that it seemed a bit thin for the model size and a quick check of the drawn thickness revealed the error. Have therefore gone with all the drawn sizes rather than the figured dimensions. Construction well under way - good to build using the methods we used all those years ago. Surely Alex has some more trad designs for us TOGs? More of the same please.