Nigel Heather

Hi, Screwfix prices for M6 are excellent, unfortunately that is as small as they go, they don’t do M5. Since I bought the SLEC kit I feel that I should stick with M5 otherwise it would mean replacing the screws, the washers and maybe even the brackets (if the slots can’t be filed out) - all I would be left with is the sticker. But I can get M5 nut inserts on eBay, slightly more expensive though. Question though, did you put the nut inserts with the flange on the top (sticker side) or on the bottom. Usually T-Nuts are fitted on the reverse and the nut inserts on the front? Also, what ‘wood’ did you use. I have 18mm MDF and want to be sure that the nut insert won’t blow or distort the MDF as it is screwed in.

Just had a look at the SLEC website and the photo shows two screws per bracket but certain rows left undrilled. So maybe just copy that.

A question about assembly of the SLEC Building Jig. I bought the kit last year but have only just started to assembly, not having the need until now. I have the sticker on the board and it has just occurred to me that sticker has locations for 92 holes (23 rows of 4), but the kit only comes with 56 captured nuts. It also occurs to me that 23 x 2 = 56 so is the intention to have only one bolt per bracket. I can imagine that is plenty but which hole should I use - the inner or outer? Is it simply the case of choosing depending on how big your airframes are. I've noticed that the inner hole as a maximum fuselage with of 114mm and the outer hole has a minimum fuselage width of 24mm.

It wouldn't and I wasn't deliberately excluding 4-stroke. It is more about power to weight ratio and price. In my experience heavier aircraft deal with wind and gusts better but that needs a more powerful power train to maintain the power to weight ratio. So if I take a traditional built 40 size trainer with 60" wingspan, what would the equivalent electric power train be, it certainly wouldn't be the ubiquitous 3S 2200, more like a 5S system - which is much more expensive. Many foamies I have seen tend to target the 3S 2200 market which means smaller lighter models which are more likely to get buffeted by the wind. All I am saying that for the same budget, same power to weight, IC gets you a bigger plane.

Is model flying in ‘windy’ weather a phenomenon brought on by modern electric foam models? When I first got into model RC aircraft in the late 1980s, you typically started with a 40 sized two stroke powered trainer that had a 60” wingspan. It would be typically built from a kit using balsa and ply for the fuselage, fin and tailplane and veneered foam wings which were joined with an epoxy soaked fibreglass bandage. On top of the 40 stroke metal lump up front, it had a fuel tank and full sized servos, receiver and RX battery. The result was that we started with a trainer that was heavier and more powerful than the foamies that we fly today. And the follow on aircraft would be similar build, either with smaller wingspan or you would go up to a 60 engine. I remember that it had to be pretty windy before I would think “it’s windy” and consider not flying. By comparison I find that much slighter winds these days has the guys at the club claiming “it’s a bit windy”. I think the reason is that heavier, bigger, more power aircraft are less likely to be pushed around or buffeted by the wind. Some with helicopters by the way, fly a 450 and it is squirrely, gets pushed around and impacted by even the slightest changes in wind than compared with a 600. So maybe, the answer is, if we want an RC aircraft that are more suitable for windy weather then you should go back to glow powered traditional builds. For example if you want an intermediate aircraft, how about building a Wot 4 classic kit and sticking a 55 two stroke on the front. If you don’t fancy building then similar second hand models can often be seen on the BMFA Classified at very low prices.

It’s not acrylic or Perspex, it is this stuff http://www.rcfoam.com/rc-hobby-tools-/pattern-cutting-templates/rcfoam---cool-tools-p-1001.html No idea where you can get it nor what alternatives can be used though. It possibly is similar to acrylic but this is 0.25mm thick, plenty of places selling that but in smaller sheets, not sure whether it would snap when scored though.

How big/heavy is that bandsaw. I don't have a permanent workshop so what attracted me by the mini table saw was being able to store it away in a draw or cupboard when I don't need it and that it does need much table space on the rare occasions when I would need to use it.

Was that a few years ago before the hyper inflation and when we were still in the EU. Best I have seen is £420, but also seen Microlux/Micromart model that looks very similar for £325. Moot though as both out of my league for the use I would get out of it.

Good tip for velcro. I have a roll of self-adhesive velcro, must be a few years old and I notice that over time in storage the backing paper has detached and the adhesive dried up. So POR will save the expense of replacing. BTW, I will use velcro for the battery but this is building a little platform for the battery because in the Rukus the space is limited and ESC, RX and Battery are all expected to occupy the same area. Strangely, the manual which covers assembly in minute detail totally skips over how you are supposed to arrange the battery ESC and RX.

I experimented today. Stuck two pieces of light ply to a scrap piece of foam, one using the contact method and one using the traditional glue method. As you said the one with the contact method adhered instantly with no wiggle room and was solid from the moment that the two parts made contact. The one using the traditional method could be slid around for quite a while, and took a lot longer for the glue to cure, I'd say a couple of hours at least, but once it had cured it was as solid as the contact method. So in my finding, the contact method is a lot quicker and allows you to conform the parts to any curves without any pinning, but the grab is instant and does allow any wriggle room. The traditional glue method, allows repositioning, takes much longer to cure and would need pinning to conform to any non-flat shape, but once cured seems just as secure. Guessing the longer cure time is because glue is open to the air.

Out of curiosity, anyone know the science behind contact adhesive. For example I watched a guide on how to use POR to glue a foam former to a foam fuselage side. The suggestion was to apply POR to the edge of the former, offer it up to the fuselage side and then immediately separate the two parts. I guess this was to allow POR to be precisely applied to the fuselage. Then after 10 minutes of drying, offer up the two parts for the final fixing. So what is the science? Why is letting the glue dry before joining more superior than just leaving the parts together in the first place and letting the glue cure with them in-situ? I always imagined that you used contact adhesive when you wanted an instant bond - for example if you were applying foam sheet over a curved turtle deck and you want the foam to conform to the curve and stay put without having to use tape and pins to hold it down. Cheers, Nigel

The Proxxon FET looks interesting but the price makes it a no-go for me, I simply don't have the needs to justify that sort of expense. Must admit I was quite shocked by the price, I was expecting to see something like £200 and even then I'd have to think about it, but £420, that's Bosch or DeWalt territory. Interesting as it looks, I simply can't justify that sort of money for the limited use I would get out of it.

Thanks for the advice - I never realised that you could use UHU POR as a contact adhesive - have always just used as a traditional glue.

Thanks for all the advice. I need to glue light ply plates inside the foam fuselage. The position is important as they have slots that a ply floor for the battery to slide into. Using gorilla glue sounds a bit risky as it would be difficult to hold the plates securely in position whilst the glue cures. So going to go with UHU POR. Cheers, Nigel

Can imagine how a bigger saw handles thicker wood better, but how does it deal with smaller stuff and balsa?

I have some Gorilla glue to, bought for DIY rather than modelling, it is brown but not sure it is the specific one you mean. It is quite runny and expands when it cures - is that the one you mean.

Just watched a YouTube video of the Proxxon KS 230, little underwhelmed to be honest.

Building a battery tray for my Max Flight Ruckus which involves gluing some light ply to the foam - I have UHU POR and two part epoxy - would one be more suitable than the other?

I stand corrected about the Proxxon - still can't comment on how good it is but it does have a toothed belt, and the Magicrose maybe a clone.

From my research I’m not convinced the Proxxon is very different to the Chinese no-name. Seen videos of several models showing the inner workings and they are all similar, a motor driving a belt to the saw. This belt means that they can skip on the protection circuitry because when the torque required is too much the belt slips. Amazon reviews have videos of the Proxxon and the Chinese no-names struggling with thicker materials - in the videos you can see the blade stop but hear the motor still spinning - so the belt must be slipping. The Proxxon has a built in power supply so can be run direct from the mains - this makes the Proxxon wider, but the saw and bed look identical to the no-name models. In fact, Amazon sell the Magicrose Electrical Mini Bench that looks identical to the Proxxon but selling for £60.

Has anyone tried a mini table saw. I’ve seen 12V ones on Amazon and eBay for around the £50-60 mark, lots of different makes but clearly all no-name Far-East stuff, and very similar, probably all the same but with different cosmetic styling. Reviews are so mixed it is difficult to tell whether they are great or rubbish. At that price it is very attractive but I wouldn’t mind paying a little more for a more reputable product. But every time I search all I find is these same Far East products or for bigger ones for doing full size woodworking.

This is what mine looked like to. Andy got the BMFA admins to correct it. I assume that there was a glitch when I renewed and the database didn’t get correctly updated - but the admins were able to rectify it quickly.

I’ve never managed to solve tip clogging, no matter how careful I have been. Best results I’ve found is to stand the bottle upright after use, let the glue settle for a while and then gently squeeze so that it blows air (and presumably, tiny bits of CA), then wipe the spout and put the top on. By no means perfect, but I find that I have a better chance of finding the spout unclogged on next use. But it is not a miracle cure, you will also find the tip clogs on occasions and then it I out with the needed.

Thanks for the ToolStation recommendation - I will check that out. Just had a look, they do two viscosities 20g Medium - £2.08 20g Thick - £2.58 50g Medium - £3.88 50g Thick - £4.88 This is where I usually get drawn into buying the bigger bottles, but from my personal experiences I’m going to stick to the small bottles. They don’t do thin or wicking versions but something I have read, but never tried, is that you can thin CA with acetone or cellulose thinners. Not sure I would risk that on an important airframe but if I wanted a small amount of fast setting thin CA on something not too critical I’d be prepared to experiment.

After years of thinking I was buying the best then having to replace it when more than half full I've finally got fed up of paying big bucks for Zap. Just wondering what you guys recommend - I think the key for me is to buy smaller bottles as I don't use that much. Cheers, Nigel