Jump to content

Graham Davies 3

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Graham Davies 3 last won the day on May 14

Graham Davies 3 had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Graham Davies 3's Achievements



  1. Hi Martin, Great you're having a go. There's a few of us on here enjoying some FB fun, so feel free to drop us a line. it would be great to share the love, so ask questions on here and we'll share what we've learned so far, what worked, what didn't, what we're planning and what we'd do differently next time. I share your love for jap twins; I went straight in and the Ki45 was my first foamboard model. It flies so well amd other club memebrs still can't believe how easy it is for me to solo hand launch a 60" twin! Graham
  2. Welcome to foamboard modelling! Not used the Range's product, but used both the flighttest and Hobbycraft stuff. Flitetest backing paper comes off very easily, so I tend to use it without. HC is much harder to remove, but as @RICHARD WILLSsays, it can be removed with some patient use of the iron. For wings, I use paper ON for ribs and off for skins although my next model will leave the paper on the outside. For fuselages, I tend towards a box construction with paper ON, and take both sides off to curve it to make decks. I then cover in brown paper and PVA to stiffen the surface and give a great painting surface. You can curve the stuff by dragging it along the edge of a table (the flitetest videos show this very well). You can create compound curves by carefully cutting slits to allow you to reglue these parts. It sands OK once you've done this. I glue with POR, which can be used as a contact adhesive, or wet to give you some positioning time, or hot melt. I do tend to get myself in a mess with this though! Regarding design; I'm not a fan of the 'lobster tail' appearance, so use more conventional techniques to avoid this. Use plenty of formers under fuselage decks to prevent the starved horse look. For the wings on my RE2005, I used hard balsa 1/4" square spares with 1/16" webbing and ply dihedral braces which all locked into retract plate rails. All of these were attached to lightply ribs in the centre section. The leading edge is two laminations of 1/8: balsa. The tail is two thicknesses of Hobbycraft foamboard, folded at the leading edge and tapered before joining at the TE of the elevators. The curves where the foam is exposed were covered in copier paper. In hindsight I would remove the inner skin as it's a bit heavy. The tail is quite stiff enough. This model needed a big 4S 3700 pack and a bit of lead to balance, although at 55" it still weighs a few ounces over 4lb and gets over 10 minutes from that pack. There's a lot more to come from this material! Graham
  3. Agree Martin. I've really had my eyes opened, and am totally re-invigorated by this material. It's totally changed how I approach building, and it's genuinely possible to build from a 3 view and end up with a practical scale model. The cost is low, the build fast and relatively low mess, and the models are up to 50% lighter. What's not to like? Graham
  4. It's easy when the airframe costs £20! We can play with 'marginal' subjects. I reckon a Polikarpov 1-180 should see me right. Only 2 prototypes, and both crashed as they were unstable. Sounds like the perfect subject to me...
  5. Great stuff Richard. I love the development of this material as a genuine medium for our scale models. It has serious potential that we are only just tapping into. For those interested, I have a foamboard Ki45 at 60" span that runs on a single 2200 3S pack and gets 5 minute flights. It weighs under 3lb, and hand launches easily, and flies like a trainer. I also have a 55" Regiane RE2005, that flies on 4S 3700 packs (but only to balance it as I was a bit careless keeping the rear end light). It still only weighs just over 4lbs despite having flaps and retracts, Both models do not look like anything other than scale models, and both fly really well. Graham
  6. All true Jeff, but my point is that if the savings are relatively small via HK, then maybe it's time to revert to other (possibly UK) sources? Particularly if you factor the delays and uncertainty of (any) far eastern source. BTW, my day job involves far eastern supply and I spend a fair bit of my time over there. I quite like the place and respect the people greatly, but it's still WAY easier to deal with companies less than 8000 km and several trade borders away! Graham
  7. Hmmmm. I'm slightly at a loss here. I understand the feeling of loss that we have when we enjoyed HK's UK and Euro supply chains, but all good things come to an end. The world moves on, and for someone that earns a living from Far Eastern supply, I can't see HK returning to the UK. Maybe I'm wrong. However, why persist with the dream? There are other places to buy from, and the cost differences are not that big, and you may possible keep a UK supplier in business. Just take a look at 4-Max's website and you'll see 5m of covering film for £20, plenty of cheap decent servos and all the quality advice and back up you need. For what? 10% increase in price? 20%? 40%. So what? ARTFs (I'm told) have gone up a ot more and gear is still comparatively cheap. Personally, I've moved on. If they return, fine. If they don't, equally fine...
  8. Hi DD, Since discovering foamboard, I use it for ribs on most of my models. Unless they carry significant landing loads, it works fine, is easy to cut, makes little mess and is dirt cheap. Light too. Beware that whilst it has a very slight grain, it has nothing like the grain strength of balsa so can be very fragile if it is narrow. For example in smaller ribs where the spars are close together. Oh, and it does tend to blunt your blades quite quickly. Otherwise it's a great alternative material Graham
  9. Hi DD, What Kim said! However, using ecalc the Axi on an 11x6 will give you slightly more thrust that weight at 6lbs. So it will fly it no problem. Calculated flight time on a 4500 pack (the software doesn't have a 440 one!) is around 8 minutes, so sounds about right. If you use the DM2830 you'll need a 14x8 prop or thereabouts, but will get a slightly better flight time. Basically, either will work. However, from the ecalc results I would choose the Protronik; less marginal and better efficiency. Graham
  10. HI DD, I have a full subscription to e-calc, so did a few 'what-ifs' for you. Using the Protroniks motor, you'll need a pretty big prop. A 14x8 will give you a thrust to weight ratio of around 0.9, which will fly it nicely, and a flight time of around 5 minutes on the 2200 packs. A 16x8 will give you a thrust/ weight ratio of 1.1, or 'plenty'! That will reduce your flight times to 4 minutes. That equates to 468W of electrical power. Bigger packs will help, and will also help the CofG too. Let me know what you plan using and what props you have and I'll run the simulations for you. Graham
  • Create New...