Peter Miller

I don't have a loft. I do have an old kennel building that later was my workshop.   Last month I dragged out all the old models that I would "reinstate", Repair" or "restore" or salvage from one of the kennel bays. There were models going back 20 years.   I had a great big bonfire. Most satisfying.

I am now going to say my last word on this subject. I have just been looking at Peter MacDermott's Dh 9a in RCM&E. The ultimate in perfection of scale modelling.   Peter installs a pilot for flight.   As far as I am concerned the only people who would be entititled to say that he is wrong or that it makes his model look like a toy had better be a better scale modeller with more achievments that Peter.   If they are not better modellers, they should shut up.

A very nice job of painting there Gemma.   Why did you feel the need for varnish?  Matt enamels work fine and only need fuel proofing in open cockpits.

The flying would be a bit restricted although you could fly seaplanes and maybe a bit of indoor.

I really dug into the strange and rare ones for those two.   A clue to the conventional high winger. I designed a scale model of an aicraft from the same company but it was published in another magazine.

The ROmans had the right idea with their marble statues. They painted them to look more  realistic.

Martin, Where did you read that story about the 617 Lanc?   I ask because I am puzzled. The Lancaster tailplane has a symmetrical section and, having thought about it carefully, I cannot see how fitting the elevators upside down would make any significant difference.   Possibly if the tabs were connected the wrong way it might but not otherwise.   I worked on Lancs for a time and then Shackletons which are very similar.

Then there was the Slingsby sailplane that had positively lethal spin/stall tendancies.   It was found to have been built with wash in on the wings instead of wash out. I believe that it is still flying.

Like most people I use up for high rates and down for loow rates, logical.   Talking of reversed controls, which we weren't really.   Did you know that Avro Designer Roy Chadwick was killed in a Tudor which crashed because the ailerons controls were reversed.    If the big boys can do it there is no shame when you do it...just  expense and ridicule.

Point very definitely made Gemma!

I have a mobile phone. IT is never switched on and I don't even know my own number. I got it for emergencies while out in the car.   When I bought it the man asked what features I wanted. I said "A phone, nothing else." Look of shock horror on his face.   The first one I had you had to top up once a year with £10. When it became obsolete I got a refund of £70.   Oh yes, connecting a mobile phone to a dish! Well, you want a good quality dish, I suggest Royal Doulton. Then Epoxy is the best means of connection.

Sounds pretty good. In my club you have to pay them to take things!!!!!

I have said this earlier in thread but maybe some of the contributors haven't read that far back.   Flanker criticizesunrealistic pilots.   Flanker is a sculptor.   Now I don't know what Flanker's work is like but when you get a large lump of rock with a hole in it called "Reclining figure" or two polished lumps of rock called "Mother and Child" by someone who is hailed as a great sculptor (i.e. Henry Moore) no one can criticize my little plastic pilot as being unrealistic.

You didn't mention how you did at the club auction!

I know! That isn't the point!   The point is that We know what a .15 is. We don't know what a XG2341 B is or a BF3g4txa6t is but we might if we had a standard numbering system. IS the C95r56A87p the same or more powerful that a X&%*$ZY and if we want to convert a .32 i.c powered model to electric which one should we use.   I mean, from what I see at the moment we might as well have the original Chinese characters instead of any other codes or names. they mean just about as much.

As I said, if a model is designed for a given size, it will fly on any engine in that size.   To restate it. ".15 will fly any model designed for that size of engine, with some it might be sluggish and with another it might go like stink but they both will fly it."   I know it will fly with those engines on 10% fuel and an 8X6 prop but I don't know if an E-PRO 2832/22 22T will fly it and I don't really want to have to try several batteries and props only to find that I should have used another motor..   Fine, you can go by what the shop tells you (I have known of a few cockups going that route including a recent one in our club.) but can they tell for my own design.   So all I am asking for is a guide in the numbering that says .15 or .25 or what ever.   At least, I am not asking for it, I don't really care. I know what to use, it says .15 or .32 or whatever on the side of the motor  

I was not saying one was better than another. I was trying to say why it is so hard to tell what electric motor to use for a given size of model because there is no system whereby you can look at the motor number and tell what power it is.   I just looked through some adverts and I see that a few shops are now including the i.c. equivalent beside many of their brushless motors. That is good but many do not. The J.Perkins website doesn't for a start.   With so many people converting models to electric power I feel that all motors should have the equivalent given.

Fifty one years ago I had an accident that wasn't my fault.   I was flying a new C/L combat model on a windy day. While starting a pair of pliers was dropped. After the model was in the air a junior club member started to got to get the pliers but was told not to.   While everyone was watching the model he went into the circle to pick them up. The combat model hit him. He was lucky, the engine passed behind his head but the prop slashed his ear very badly.   I had to walk him all the way home through the town. Someone that I asked to take us to his home refused because of all the blood.   His ear was stitched up at hospital and healed almost perfectly.   His parents didn't sue but I was very glad that I had the insurance. These days your feet wouldn't touch the ground before you were in court.   That happened on my 20th Birthday, I was in shock for a week.   I would never fly without insurance

I think a lot of the trouble is the infinite variations you can have with electric motors. Magnet strength, number of windings, guage of wire and so on.   With ic motors you have the capacity which is always a good guide. All right, some are more powerful than others but generallay a .15 will fly any model designed for that size of engine, with some it might be sluggish and with another it might go like stink but they both will fly it.

A lot of realism is due to correct painting. A coat of flesh with pink lips, white eyes with blue centres and  a coat of brown for the jacket doesn't work.   I used to dabble in painting miniature figures and learned a lot from that.   The best book I know is "The Art of Painting Miniatures (Faces and Figures) by Alex Castro, published by Compendium Modelling Classics. That really does go far beyond anything we really need.   To see the eys of his miniatures is to understand real perfection and the eyes are  critical to realism.   I like to paint pilots well for when the model is on the ground but as I alsway say, You can see the detail at 50 feet and that si where the realism of having a pilot in the cockpit really counts.

Hi Phil.   Got the 3 views, not very accurate but with photos will be enough for my stand off scale models.   Now the dissapointing bit. I have been looking for a model for a .15 for another magazine. IT is just what I want so thanks for remindng me.

That canopy is sacrilege! The original is a beautiful blown canopy/   No, I am sorry, I don't have the drawings any longer. It would make a great model. Mine was control line but I feel sure that there was an R/C model at some time.   If I ever find three views I will probaly design one for R/C.

I know it had a different canopy at one stage. That one looks messy. Aaprt from that I admit I was wrong.   Still two of mine that have not been identified

Looking very good.

Isn't it a shame that electric motors do not seem to have consistant form of classification.   Any .15 would fly Size Zero but every electric mot0r has a different number an no indication of what it really means.