Martin Harris - Moderator
-
Posts
12,610 -
Joined
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by Martin Harris - Moderator
-
-
The technical answer is that the Centre of Gravity is a 3 dimensional point somewhere above, below or on the point shown on the plan where all the weight can be said to be acting. On a high winger it is somewhere below the wing and on a low winger somewhere above it.If you hang an object from any point, a theoretical plumb line would pass through the C of - G. Do it from any 2 points and the plumb lines will only meet at one point - the C of G.
If you attempt to balance an object by supporting it below the C of G, the slightest movement will displace the C of G point above the pivot and gravity will tilt the object more and more as the effective weight moves away from the pivot. Support it above the C of G and gravity will pull the C of G back into line.
-
I had a good grounding working at the BSA in the 60's on how to ill-treat items of dubious integrity and make sure they didnt break, if they did we put them on a bike for exportSo was it you that built my '67 Triumph Super Cub? (the D14 Bantam framed one) I went to a Triumph Owners Club AGM at the time of the Meriden lock-in which was held in the BSA canteen but no-one there would admit responsibility!
-
Thought it might be an attempt at sarcasm...Flanker, I was fairly pleased with my Mosquito crew that I painted this week - would they really detract from a small cartoon scale Mossie?
They certainly aren't Michaelangelos - and please remember they aren't far short of full size in this preview - but I think they are worth their place...
-
I'd spotted that Flanker had given that impression but to be honest, I'd assumed it was a slip on the keyboard as your post was very clear in making your point.
-
P. 184 of The Dam Busters (history of 617) by Paul Brickhill (Pan Books). If it's any help, apparently when they fitted new auto pilots prior to D-Day they found that this particular aircraft needed longer elevator cables and the elevator was found to be fitted upside down.Perhaps it was due to asymmetrical linkages? The book didn't go into details...
-
Flanker,Sorry, perhaps I didn't make the point very well. I am sure you were moved by the statue, as I was when I saw a statue some years ago at Luton Hoo - possibly Cupid and Psyche which totally captivated me with its luminosity and presence. No, I haven't seen David in the flesh - or the marble to be more accurate - but I am certain that you are absolutely correct that a photo couldn't do it justice.
oou seem to agree that the right representation can exude an impression of far more than just a cold stone (plastic, rag, wax etc. etc.)" thing".
I agree that a sport model such as a Limbo Dancer or a Wot4 doesn't need a pilot as it isn't attempting to represent a full sized object. A few (but only a very few) models exude almost a perfect representation of full size and the satisfaction of producing such a model can only be imagined by the majority of people. I probably agree with you that a pilot figure of this standard is rare in the extreme and usually only achieved by helmeted pilots but again, once in the air I just find the idea of seeing it as realistic with an empty cockpit laughable. Almost all models of this standard will either be open cockpit or have opening canopies and as such, can be provided with a pilot for flight.
For the majority, the pilot figure is no less realistic than the model and therefore quite acceptable to me. How many of the "mortals" amongst us build models that can be described as anything more than sport scale?
I'm not sure why you think that Gemma's doctored picture of a full sized Mustang looks anything more than a model - surely it must be as there's no pilot! Yes, it looks like a very well finished model, but no more than that.
Anyway, I shall continue to try my best, commensurate with the type and standard of model that I am making , to put appropriate pilots in my models and you will no doubt continue flying with empty cockpits. Neither of us is any more correct than the other as our hobby is all about personal enjoyment, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to take magazine contributors to task for expressing their personal views.
Cheers ,
Martin
-
For an artist, you do seem to have a rather blinkered view, Flanker. Of course Peter's view is last century - as far as I know, that's when Sir Henry Moore was making strange representations that some feel worthy of assigning value as renditions of the human form and last had any publicity in the non-art enthusiast's world. Nicely made shapes, yes, but I wouldn't want one in one of my cockpits!How can you be moved by a static lump of stone with a fixed gaze - Michael is to my mind what a sculpture purporting to celebrate the human form should be (although I wish Michaelangelo had done one of Michael's sister instead!) and at a smaller scale, suitably painted and outfitted, could make a useul pilot figure Being moved by a lump of cold marble goes against all your arguments. I suppose in a small way, I'm moved (but not usually to tears, I admit) by a well modelled aircraft with a suitable looking pilot flying past me.
There's a world of difference between a shiny red tractor driver and a nicely crafted model of Farmer Giles sitting proudly on his Massey-Fergusson 135, but as a child, I'll admit that my Corgi Aston Martin DB5 would have had provided only a fraction of its value without the little red man who regularly exited through the roof, courtesy of the ejector seat!
Modelling is the art of illusion. To try to complete the illusion with a pilotless flying model doesn't work for me and, I'd guess, the majority of modellers. Keep flying your radio controlled drones (I assume you are a flyer?) by all means, but should I see one in the air doing a nice low pass, please don't be offended if I mutter something about it being spoilt by the empty cockpit...
-
Even more subtle was the well respected pilot who transferred into 617 suadron and was allocated a brand new Lancaster. His crew were not too happy to be going with him as 617 had a reputation of something of a suicide squadron and were horrified that he appeared to have lost the ability to fly a Lanc!
Some time later after many near disasters, particularly botched landings, repairs were being done to the tailplane area and someone realised the elevators were fitted upside down! Fitting them correctly led to an instantaneous revertion to the pilot's normal competence.
By the way, I have high rates switched on in the down position as the switches appear off to me in the up position - therefore a quick scan of the transmitter before take off avoids nasty surprises!
-
Nah, the pilot's doing up his shoelaces!
-
While I'm sure that Flanker is getting a good chuckle over the passions inflamed in this thread, his self-admitted trolling does raise some interesting points.I certainly agree with him that in most cases, a static model has no added value from the pilot - in fact it can hide cockpit detail, but the idea that putting a little dolly in the cockpit of a flying model detracts from it is laughable. The one thing that immediately destroys any illusion that a model is the real thing is to see it flying with an empty cockpit. In fact, if the canopy reflects as Flanker claims, it wouldn't make any difference either way.Yes, a poor pilot in a nice scale jobbie ruins it as an illusion of reality (which is all it can be) but if someone wants to put a pink giraffe in an Acrowot - why not? It's a miniature aircraft with no pretence of trying to be any more than a capable tool for performing various aerobatic manoeuvres. The "pilot" is just an expression of the owners individuality in the same way as the paint scheme often is.
I'd question why Flanker wants to stop article authors campaigning for realism in flight - isn't what the majority of readers do is to fly models? If you just want to look at a model then don't make it capable of flight! That way you won't have to lose all the engine parts, switches etc.
Most modern aerobats are representations of Extras, Sukhois, Edges etc. and as such DO look stupid with empty cockpits to (I'd guess) the majority of modellers, if the responses in these threads are anything to go by. Surely the magazine article comments you dislike are heartfelt opinions of fellow modellers?
I would defend your right to fly your own models with "something missing" if it's what you want, but rest assured it would look wrong to me and more of a toy because of it.
-
Rather more worryingly:http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4193079./
A 70-YEAR-OLD man whose home was demolished yesterday after a bitter seven-year planning battle was last night reported missing to police.
Fears have been raised for the safety of model aircraft enthusiast Christopher Hodgson, who suffers from angina, after his long-running dispute with Hambleton District Council came to an end.
-
Hugh,I can't imagine why a scale Chipmunk should be any more difficult for you to fly than any low winger that you might move on to as a second or third model - the only advantage with an ARTF being that if you have a nasty it doesn't leave such lasting scars...although the main reward to me of a "proper" build is in the build itself and the results.I think you might find a 60" version somewhat easier to fly than a 40", wing loading may well end up a little lower and it will be less twitchy and easier to see.I'd say enjoy the build and the anticipation, get it test flown by someone who knows what they're doing and who knows your competence and then enjoy the fruits of your labours!
-
Bottom line:Clear canopy - must have a pilot in flight. For static display, I've no real preference.If you don't want a pilot - fine, paint the canopy black, silver or sky blue pink but PLEASE don't leave a glaring open space in anything that could reasonably expect to have an occupied office...Please David, don't print any more pictures of models displaying their servos through a crystal clear canopy while doing a knife edge pass!
-
In order to drag this thread back from where Phil and I have diverted it, here's my latest offering. They are Pete's pilots 1/17th scale (or was it 1/20th?) so they were a bit fiddly...
If you zoom in, please remember that they are very small scale and make allowances for the brushwork - on my laptop these are about life size in this preview! -
Erfolg wrote: As an ex-power flyer, who believes IC will be totaly extinct within 10 years, and probably only a very few localities which will tolerate ICs in 5 years, or there abouts, please look to the future!It does seem to me that electrics, as the power levels are increasing, are getting ever noisier (prop noise mostly) while IC engines are being silenced better. One of the quietest engines (in the air) that I've got is an OS90FX. Shouldn't we be pressing for even more effective silencing?
I'd venture to contend that the general move towards larger engines and 4 strokes over the last 20 years or so actually reduces apparent noisiness with lower revs, hence lower frequency sound which is easier on the ears.
I really hope that Erfolg's depressing scenario doesn't come to fruition.While electric power is cost effective and practical at small/medium sizes, it is still a daunting prospect to fit out a larger model. This may well improve but there are a lot of us out there who find IC has that undefinable extra something over the rather sterile operation of an electric model.
-
Whatever you prefer.
-
A couple of hundred for a windscreen is hardly what it's about - why do you think the cover has gone from 5 to 10 MILLION pounds?Taking any risks with insurance is an absolute no no.
-
That'll be the reason! Actually, that was the result of a mid-air on its second outing. Things would have been OK if the other model's prop hadn't cut the aerial an inch from the receiver!Having enjoyed it so much, I had it in the air again a week or so later - believe it or not it was a lot less serious than the picture makes out.
Better let this thread get back to model pilots soon or we'll be in trouble!
-
Phil wrotemartin i have one of these to build do they have any vices thank you
They don't enjoy mid-airs but it rebuilt OK.
I've acquired an Extra Slim kit and have got as far as cutting out the duplicate fuselage parts I'll need. I'm planning on building it with removable wing panels this time and upping the span a little to reduce the wing loading with the 46FXs I'm planning to use this time. The first one started on SC25s and ended up with 40FPs and excellent vertical performance so I'm expecting phenomenal performance if I can get it through our noise checks with suitable props.It needs some rudder applying on one engine but is great for learning to handle asymmetric thrust. If you lose an engine - it's up to you whether you land or just continue on one engine for fun.Repertoire is more or less unlimited. Knife edge is as good as you'd imagine with 2 profile fuselages.The reason I'm having to build another is that mine suffered an engine out in a flat spin at @ 30 feet and I didn't realise why it wouldn't recover until it was at minus 6 inches.I think you'll gather that I'm strongly recommending it! The only vice is that it's addictive... -
Chessiegolf,That's certainly established your credentials!I'll be very interested in your findings. Of course, all models behave differently but whatever yours does will act as an indication - what is it youre building?Have you done any experiments with thrust lines adjusted to provide some help?Modern full size practice is to hold a little bank into the live engine and apparently they don't teach you not to turn into the dead engine any more - but I suppose modern designs have had a lot of development into better engine out characteristics.
-
Just thought - I'll be in trouble now with the moderators for using a dirty word disguised with asterisks....
-
P.S. B.C. showed me how to do it far too many years ago so I'm a Mode 2 thumber as well.I do admit to having used finger and thumbs and a neckstrap when I flirted with h*l*c*pt*rs a while back but I've had therapy and I'm on the road to recovery!
-
As opposed to an improper mode 1?
-
Some authenticated historical information (I used to watch it every week!)Dick Dastardly and Muttley flew in the Vulture Squadron but had their own aircraft although occasionally for some missions would double up. Their main aim was to catch the heroic carrier pigeon.Dick was always put in a perilous position via one of his nefarious schemes and Muttley would come to the rescue, after negotiating the award of another medal. I think I remember him using his tail as a helicopter rotor on more than one occasion.In the Wacky Races, Dick and Muttley did share a car.In later years, they progressed to an Extra Slim Twin
Dunstable Down
in Gliders and Gliding - General Discussion
Posted