Richard Clark 2

It's all caused by being too tight-fisted (see Paul Marsh's post re 'Futaba' servos). Buy from your local and long established model shop if there is one or a 'reputable' online place in the UK that has an actual, physical, and preferably checkable UK address on its website. British laws do not extend beyond British borders and relying on credit card protection just puts up card interest rates for everyone - banks, Paypal etc. are not charitable institutions. Remember, toy planes are not a way of saving money

Posted by leccyflyer on 07/06/2020 09:32:45: I've never seen a case with the transmitter deliberately held upside down. What a very strange thing for manufacturers to do. Those old hard plastic cases for the Futaba FF8 were very compact and tight for space, but the TX was definitely held uprights. Used to be a pain at fly-ins though, as there were so many of them in the TX pound. Not strange at all, it is the normal thing with all equipment cases made for relatively 'flat' things, the handle and closures being at the top or if laid flat, near to you, and the hinges being at the bottom or away from you. Open it from the usual   'laid down' position  and the equipment presents to you the correct way. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 08/06/2020 16:13:51

Posted by Oops on 07/06/2020 18:17:42: I'm such a t**. I last looked at this radio some 4 years ago and didn't know anything about it then. I've just realised that the cable I found marked multiplex and that 've been putting into the din socket on the back of the tx is a PC interface cable. No wonder it wouldn't charge. The radio has been converted to 2.4 Frank. I see what you mean about setting the mah. I've found a cable that is not marked multiplex that has bananas one end and a din the other and once I've verified that it's a correct charge cable for the mpx I'll use that in future rather than direct to battery. I've nimh pack I use eg for flying slope soarers but they are squarish 4-5 AA packs, did you actually find a 6 cell in the same shape as the permabatt? I don't see any signs of the pack being fubared but I'll put it through a few cycles. I did wonder when you said "Multiplex to USB cable" in your initial post. The Multiplex charger cable has a 3 pin DIN on one end and a pair of 'banana' plugs on the other. This will fit the 7 pin DIN socket on the transmitter. You cant use 'any old' DIN cable as there is no internationally accepted standard for the DIN pinout. SO - the pinout you need - Looking at the PIN end of a 3 or 5 pin 180 degree DIN connector with the notch at the bottom, you need the extreme left hand pin connected to the charger negative and the extreme right hand pin connected to the charger positive The other pins are not used. The genuine Mulitplex battery should be the Permabatt+ (plus) . This has 6 Eneloops, the older one without the 'plus' has the older 'regular' cells. The one shown by Frank also has Eneloops but you would need to cut off the 'servo' type connector and solder on the cable from your old battery.

Posted by Oops on 07/06/2020 08:28:52: Thanks Trevor I'd not seen your post when I was writing mine nice to think there may be hope! I get an implication that maybe I'm charging at too low a rate. I'd thought it safer to do that but as you and Brian will have gathered I'm doing this emprically not on any science . Ok, I will try those suggestions and yes I will def leave for some days / keep a close eye, I did similar with my sulfated pb battery. Marc You often get false peaks or refusal to charge at all when charging Nimh cells from flat. It usually happens because you have either set a low charge rate or CORRECTLY set the charger to 'Sensitive' or 'Nimh'. Try it with the charger set to about 1 amp (1000 mA) and the peak set to 'Normal' or 'Nicad' and it should work. BUT ONLY LEAVE IT LIKE THIS FOR ABOUT TEN MINUTES. Then stop the charger and set it to the correct position for Nimh and start again. Ideally do both processes with the battery connected to the charger directly, not via the Multiplex transmitter's DIN socket as that way you don't involve the transmitter's protection circuit. TAKE CARE. Via the DIN socket the older Evos, marked 'Evo' and maybe the older Cockpits could be damaged if you use a charger capable of charging more than about 8 cells and the manual that comes with them warns you about this. The later ones, marked 'Royal' are ok with such chargers.. It's because some such chargers can produce a very high 'open circuit' voltage when switched on before connecting it to anything. If you ever need it fixed or checked over  Mike Ridley of 'Model Radio Workshop', near Southampton is  the official service agent. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 07/06/2020 09:05:45 Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 07/06/2020 09:10:36

Posted by Barrie Lever on 06/06/2020 12:17:54: Andy Pauline passed away last summer, I keep an eye on John, we even invited him over for Xmas day lunch but he was going to have lunch with some old drinking buddy in the same home where Pauline stayed. I would give John a call, email and the Internet are not his thing, failing that let me know what you want and I will track him down. He is a very good friend of mine, we share a lot of interests including old motorcycles of which he has three (BSA Gold Stars) one of which I have ridden. Regards Barrie Sorry to hear about Pauline. I knew John, but not well (he lives quite close to us). He used to come to Beaulieu in his blue van full of modelling stuff quite often. I bouqht a 'Falcon' kit of the Vic Smeed Debutante and a Ben Buckle Junior 60 kit out of his van.. Three Goldies? He once came to Beaulieu on one. But three? The model trade must pay quite well, a good one (and the one I saw was perfect) is worth up to about £17,000 now .

Posted by Paul Law on 06/06/2020 10:22:52: Been looking at transmitter cases of late as one of mine has seen better days, one of the Logic cases which is a bit battered and bruised. How do you all carry/store your transmitters to and from the field, what cases in your opinion offer the best protection and value for money considering how much we all spend on Transmitters and many of us I guess own more than one ? How do you cut the foam inserts to fit round the transmitter ? Thoughts ? Cheers, Paul You can go 'over the top' with these things. For example, I mostly use an approx £450 Multiplex Royal SX transmitter. A genuine Multiplex case is about 60 quid. And a case is not essential anyway. A larger one made out of aluminium, with a felt lining, a good strong handle, several movable felt covered 'separators' and a foam block you can cut out to any shape you want (a sharp kitchen knife is a good tool for this) is 14 quid from B&Q. The transmitter in the foam block occupies about two thirds of the width, then a separator in one of the standard grooves, leaves a nice space for a charging cable, a plug-in wireless training dongle, and a few odds and ends. Why pay several times as much for a specific 'transmitter' case? It's not a if you are being sponsored to advertise their stuff. I look at my fly fishing rods and sometimes think the fancy 'rod tube' they often come in must cost more to make than the rod itself

Posted by Dougie Swan 1 on 05/06/2020 16:52:52: Thanks for all the replies, they are really helpful I have emailed 4max to ask for a setup that I can use Dougie I agree with Simon Chaddock and PatMc on the power though I think Simon's weight may be a little optimistic. 450 watts will be more than ample but it's not grossly over powering it. And such a motor running at well under maximum power is more efficient than a smaller one working harder. An advantage of electric over glow is that you can experiment on the ground with a wide range of propeller sizes, even without a 'wattmeter' (though they are useful). Just stop the motor after a minute or so and check it is not 'too hot' with a couple of fingers. 'Warm' is ok.

Posted by Peter Miller on 29/09/2018 09:03:34: I always stick my non self adhesive Velcro down with epoxy. Had too many self adhesive Velcro come adrift. I lost my Super 60 when the battery came out in aerobatics. This time the whole mount came loose after a rought field take off. Well, there isn't much structure to stick the mount to. RIP Me too. And a lot of 'supermarket' velcro is only available self-adhesive but it comes off with cellulose thinners. And epoxy can 'peel' so I also put a couple of countersunk screws through it. Velcro is fine otherwise, even for big batteries (in my case a Kilogram in an EDF) if you have a large overlap. Alternatively put a loose loop of the two sorts of velcro sewn together with 'button thread' passing UNDER the battery platform As for BECs etc. I only use them on small low value/low effort planes. I would rather larger planes carry three or four ounces of Eneloops for the radio than have zero control.

Even before coronavirus I got the impression that there has been . a considerable 'contraction' of the market in the UK. And Ripmax, the Black Horse importer, has been very much a part of it, such as the closure of the HobbyStores shops. I saw that coming, I was a frequent customer of the Southampton one and often was the only customer in it, even if I was 'browsing' and buying odds and ends for half an hour or more. I rarely buy ARTFs, only the occasional scale model I quite like but not enough to built it myself. The only Black Horse one I have is the 90mm EDF ViperJet. I was NOT impressed by the quaility. Intake ducting so small it instantly collapsed when I applied full power, the holes in the glass/epoxy horns far too big for the supplied kwiklinks, a supposedly 'carbon' tube wing joiner that would not have withstood the G force of the first gentle turn, and the forward battery location on the plan and required to clear the supplied intake ducting, resulted in a C of G about three inches further forward than the plan indicated. Then there is the price. It was £350 then, which I thought was a bit much for what is basically a bare, but covered airframe, not even any retracts, which are essential. And a fan unit would have nice, even without a motor. The plane has increased to about £500 now. It's no just the Viperjet. The basic balsa/ply structure is well made but why the ludicrously small wheels on fighters with retracts? And the 'pinched' nose on the Spitfire to match up with the far too small spinner? It wouldn't cost Black Horse any more to do such things correctly and their present errors must turn people away.

Posted by Cuban8 on 04/06/2020 10:07:31: Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 04/06/2020 08:04:02: The carefully measured results I got using a wattmeter, tacho, and spring 'fishing' balance to measure thrust on a string tied around the tail with the various plane's wheels on the (smooth concrete) ground the black 'IC' Master props certainly surprised me. I did the same experiment some time ago comparing (IC props) a black Master Airscrew with the equivalent APC on a model with a .91 fourstroke. I don't recall the exact details, but it did put me off the Master Airscrews as IIRC, my test piece's static thrust was down by 10% compared to the same size APC. About a pound of static thrust lost. Master Airscrews are OK, but not the most efficient if you're looking for top performance, normally fine for sport flying and they tend not break so much in an 'arrival'. I always choose the geniune APC electric props for 'leccy. Edited By Cuban8 on 04/06/2020 10:09:04 I suspect but do not know that most of it is down to the varying efficiency of different brushless motors over their acceptable load, rpm range, number of cells and radiated heat. This it very important on EDFs but few bother to check it all out on prop planes - if the motor remains 'not too hot' on an extended full power test we tend to leave it at that. We have no way of determining the actual shaft power absorbed by the prop as compared to the input wattage. Nevertheless I will buy and try a few of the APC electric props when my local model shop reopens.

Posted by Andy Meade on 23/08/2017 16:07:17: In all honesty, Phil noticed but was too chicken to mention it! It must be in the French air force. My Flair SE5 is too

Posted by Erfolg on 04/06/2020 10:11:12: Thanks for your contribution Richard. I have redrawn the wing to be fully sheeted, for a number of reasons. I have changed the wing section to Clark Y, the kit section certainly does not equate to the Profi or a similar template I have for the profile. Much of my reasons are about wanting a broader viable speed range and the original section was modified to encourage a one speed flight pattern, where drag was not foremost in the designers mind set. My intention is also a one piece wing, as much about getting into the body for servos etc. As for the dihedral, the full size seem to have little if any. Peter Millar reckons it is a a degree or so (no reason to disbelieve him). I have drawn the wing and tailplane to 0-0, the wing will be still generating lift, whilst the tail will need to possibly generate a little down force. Which leads me to down thrust. I have drawn this also to zero. I have debated where the drag centre would be and if down thrust would help in balancing forces, foe a particular speed. On that score I am very interested in your experiences. Perhaps what has really interested me is that there appears to be many modifications (mostly in detail) that have been undertaken. I guess that USA and perhaps Canadian regulators are not as bureaucratic as in the UK. Edited By Erfolg on 04/06/2020 10:12:54 The much derided Clark Y is an excellent section. Set at a true zero datum it is little different from a symmetrical section but is rarely used at a zero datum (though it was on Lindberg's Spirit of St Louis). Dihedral is not needed. on most full size planes. It is mostly there to avoid a 'droopy' appearance on low wingers and few high wingers have any except that on Cessna high wingers the flat top of their tapered thickness wings makes it look as if they have on a quick glance. Downthrust. It was only ever there to assist the uncontrolled crash on unknown ground that is a free flight 'landing'. To do this the wing is put at a very high AoA giving high lift which the downthrust works aqainst, stopping continuous loops. When the engine stops the downthrust ceases, the plane slows down and produces the lowest possible speed crash. As rc models have elevators and a rudder we can don't need any of that nonsense as we can control the speed and (usually) choose the landing area. Floaters. Floaters are 'accidentally' and 'temporarily' created because a large number of modellers don't have the foggiest idea how to set up an approach.

Posted by Peter Miller on 04/06/2020 10:24:51: This is not hard to do in the scale way. If you can find it I describe how to do this in the scale way in my Peggy Sue 2 build article. Also see Mark's Peggy Sue build. Orginally the method was described in the Sig Piper Cub kit. The pictures showsmy Paggery Sue 2 fin. Marks Build blog shows the same area very well It takes some patience and care but works well Peter, Thank you for that. I couldn't find yours but I did find Mark's superb build and with patience it doesn't look particularly difficult. The Aeronca is more difficult. From the centre line of the fuselage side where the scale colour change usually is it is curved in all directions so I stuck it down, pulling out wrinkles stringer by stringer with gentry applied local heat and hoped for the best (which worked well) and covered the fin separately, leaving a temporarily loose 'skirt'. each side to slightly overlap the fin/fuselage join when I glued the fin on. And the high tailplane attaches just above the base of the fin and 'interrupts' where the fuselage/fin curve is. As I said, even the otherwise very carefully designed Pica kit failed at this point - it used a crude triangular sheet 'wedge' which looks less realistic than not attempting it at all. I was running low on white film so I didn't even try . But thanks anyway. If I ever build a Cub I will try it.

The carefully measured results I got using a wattmeter, tacho, and spring 'fishing' balance to measure thrust on a string tied around the tail with the various plane's wheels on the (smooth concrete) ground the black 'IC' Master props certainly surprised me.

Erfolg, The N1331H site gives a huge amount of information with lots of pictures. of its total rebuild in Switzerland (the site is in English). Plus articles on the Mercury one with links to Mr Deadman's rather unsuccessful (initially) build of the Mercury kit, Also an article about the Pica one and a 'giant scale' one. I venture to suggest you stick to the colour 'layout' of N331H if not to the actual colours. In flight the finer points of the Aeronca don't really show and the fin stripe and the curved painted area behind the cabin windows was the standard factory scheme and at a distance is very distinctive and is about the only thing that distinguishes the Aeronca from all the other high wing US light aircraft. Mine is made from the Vintage Model Co replica of the Mercury kit. I made minor changes to it for rc. A one piece wing to avoid the need for functional struts (though mine are actually functional but don't need to be), 1/8 square spruce wing spar reinforcement replacing the outer 1/8th edges of the upper and lower spars, no downthrust plus a little positive incidence on the tailplane, two 3mm carbon rods from the bottom of the fuselage through to the top of the fin, also acting as tailplane locators for glueing, some similar carbon rod reinforcement in the window and windscreen area. And above all slightly larger than scale ailerons, with 50% differential. Don't believe all this garbage from the 'experts' (who have probably never actually tried it) about ailerons not working well on dihedralled high wing planes.They work perfectlty well even on my standard steep dihedral Junior 60. Mine is very light. Much lighter than my Ben Buckle (who tend to use very hard and thus heavy balsa) Junior 60. You certainly won't need flaps, though they do have an entertainment value. You might even be able to do a Fieseler Storch tribute act.

PS: If you want it 'really accurate' bear this in mind. Like the Piper Cub the fin fairs into the fuselage via the cloth covering with no clear distinction between the fuselage top and sides and the fin itself. This is near impossible to do with film over an open structure so I suggest you 'fill in' the relevant area with slightly over-thickness sheet and carve/sand it to the correct shape, which will be slightly concave. Then film cover it using low heat in this area which will stick the film without shrinking it much anf pulling it out of the (very slight) concavity. Neither the Mercury nor the bigger US Pica kit got this right. Mostly due to the rear cross section of the fuselage being too bulbous at the sides in both cases. In reality the rear cross section of the fuselage is roughly triangular with a rounded underside and the stringers end some distance before the tailpost. leaving only the basic 'three tube' triangular structure. Also on the Mercury plan (Outerzone and an old article by a Mr Deadman in RCM&E) the rear top of the Fuselage near the wing TE is flat and ends at the wing TE. In reality the top is higher, curved all the way, and ends close to thr centre of the wing chord. DO NOT OMIT the front and rear 'flying wires' that go from near the bottom of the fuselage, via the tailplane to near the top of the fin. The tailplane seat is very narrow and this section of the fuselage is likely to be somewhat flexible and the tailplane and fin may flutter without them. I fitted small brass tubes using 12-24 hour Araldite, the only epoxy which will genuinely stick metal. I added the wires after covering, not forgetting to prick the film before covering the other side to mark where the holes are.

Posted by Roger Dyke on 03/06/2020 20:10:10: Hi Andy, leccyflyer, Simon, RCPF, and Richard, I thank you all for your very valued and informative replies. I think that I now have enough info to make a decision as to what props to use. RCPF: I did notice that the hole in the IC props seemed to be bigger than the electric props. Fortunately I have a number of the special little spacers in my kit. Good tip though. Thanks again, Roger We are all 'experts' "For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert" - Arthur C Clarke

Posted by Erfolg on 03/06/2020 16:08:45: In probably the 1950s the Aeronca Sedan was quite a popular aircraft to model. A number of kit producers had one in their range. Probably in the UK the Mercury Kits version was most popular, although on the various USA plan sites there are many others. At present i am building a version for RC flight, even with re-rigging AoA and so on, I anticipate the model will tend to have a flat slow speed approach to landing. I have struggled to get ant real in depth information with respect to the Sedan. No book seems available, I have not found ant full size drawings or rebuilds/restoration images of a Sedan. I am working from something approaching a thumb nail drawing found on the internet. The important thing to me, it shows flaps, inboard of the ailerons. Yet when i look at photos (again on the internet) I cannot see any evidence of the Sedan having any. My question is, did the Sedan have flaps, if so, what type. The reason i ask what type, I wonder if fitted they are of the Split Flap type, that hang down from the undersurface? Or something else? Can anyone help, do you have information? This is a good site on the Aeronca Sedan: n1331h.com

Having tested all sorts of props I find that Watt for Watt the standard black 'Master' props meant for IC are the most efficient, though not by much. I'm pleased by that as they aren't bright coloured, not some weird 'marketing department' scimitar shape, and are strong. (Though it would be nice if they were a bit more bendy.) The fine tips on most of the APC props tend to snap off in a 'bad landing' and anyway the Masters beat them on efficiency.

Posted by RICHARD WILLS on 28/05/2020 09:38:41: Sorry about the delay everyone . We had the kits finished on Tuesday all except the main spars which still hadnt turned up . Its the way things are at the moment . There are certain things you cant get at all . However I will be in possession of all of the Spitfires by Friday and will contact you for payment prior to dispatch . For those puzzled by the above , the main spars are not 5mm square as you will see when you build , but their thickness and strength is critical . When you start building , do refer to my tips a couple of pages back . Thanks for your patience chaps . Richard Richard, I received my Spitfire mid-morning Tuesday 2nd June. It's an excellent kit, both in design, wood selection, and relative simplicity as a 'day-to day' but still convincing model. I will need to practice my barrel rolls Thank you.

Deleted - irrelevant. Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 03/06/2020 03:05:53

Posted by Christopher Morris 2 on 02/06/2020 11:59:08: Hi, whats the most power i can get from a 6" prop. So i am not limited on the motor size but i am limited by a 6" prop because its in a tube. Any suggestions for prop pitch & type of brushless motor to use. Also, any pros & cons going with a 2-3-4 bladed Thanks. It's an "How long is a piece of string? question. From my personal collection of such things. 3.5 inches diameter + 50,000 RPM + £500 = approx 5 horsepower Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 03/06/2020 02:36:32

Posted by David Davis on 01/06/2020 10:29:48: The Junior 60 was my first successful r/c model. It was powered by an Irvine 20 car racing engine which turned out to have much more power than most two-stroke 20s. It was finished in olive drab parachute nylon on the fuselage, with the flying surfaces in Natural Solartex with black trim! The whole effct was somewhat drab! I don't have a photograph of it from that period. Perhaps that's just as well. At the time, 1988, I was an absolute beginner, my radio did not have a trainer facility so I gave the model to an experienced pilot to trim out. After a few minutes with it in the air he said, "I can't stop it from climbing all the time." Which leads me to my point. What was available to power the original free flight 1946 Junior 60? An ED Competition special perhaps? I don't know what engine powered the original model but you can bet your life that it was far less powerful than anything we are likely to put in it today, and I'm including electric motors too. So, if you put a more powerful engine into a Junior 60, especially since the mode was designed for free flight, and not make any alteration to its incidences, it will climb strongly. I'm ok with that. If someone fits an engine to a Junior 60 which is so powerful that at maximum revs it forces the model to perform continuous loops, I'm led to ask, "Why have you fitted such a powerful engine to a model which is capable of flying nicely on far less power?" If you want to perform rolls and inverted flight with it then fine, but the model was never designed for those manoeuvres and that sort of thing is not for me. I simply take off, climb to altitude, throttle back and bimble about with it, admiring its flying qualities. Maybe a little down trim is required otherwise I let it fly by itself. If I want to perform aerobatices I have models which will do this readily. Edited By David Davis on 01/06/2020 10:33:27 I tend to fit any 'reasonable size' spare engine that I happen to have at the time. My Junior 60 started off with the vastly more powerful than neccessary OS Max 35 AX two stroke. But later I found a new (but discontinued) OS 30 four stroke, which sounds nicer, is considerably less powerful, but more than sufficient, and the much smaller silencer on its swivellable exhaust pipe doesn't spoil the traditional 'cylinder stuck out' side view in flight. I spend most of the time bumbling about but it's a laugh to throw it around at times. (I replaced the balsa main spar with a spruce one of the same size but tapering to half size over the root to tip distance to keep the tip inertia low.) My latest effort is the 65 inch Aeronca Sedan built from the plan from the 1953 Mercury kit. As decent small glows are getting hard to find. I ended up with a rear exhaust high revving twin ball race 'racing' MVVS 21 RC. I bought as 'new old stock' from the local model shop. On a large diameter fine pitch prop it's fine but I'm tempted to buy a PAW 19 RC diesel for it. Next is an EDF rc version of the old. 1958 049-09 ducted fan Veron Deltaceptor (it's on Outerzone). That'll be something really different

Posted by Steve J on 31/05/2020 22:41:04: Most SUA flyers do not fly in a club environment. I would say that the first thing that a beginner should do is read though the drone code and the drone code is pretty clear that people should check for airspace restrictions before they fly. I suspect most 'quad' type flyers have never heard of the BMFA or the ANO. Nor will most of them have bothered with the 'test' and the licence. To many of them it's just another toy. Only us 'serious model plane flyers' bother with such stuff. And then only for convenient and 'indisputable' insurance which many clubs insist on (BMFA membership and the attached insurance) and because some clubs and sites insist on our obeying SOME laws (CAA licence). The 'drone' fuss appears to have mostly died off. And NOT because most of us have suddenly become 'responsible citizens' if we weren't before.

Posted by Jason Channing on 01/06/2020 07:04:11: Im running a PAW 40 rc on mine, severely overpowered and flys extremely well and its all stock incidents' with no changes any where, although knife edge performance is poor, This old lady gets flown as she deserves from High alpha to inverted, The only changes I would make on My next one is to get rid of the PAW and put a saito 40 in to remove the mess after each days flying as the oil goes everywhere and takes ages to clean, Paw works faultlessly. Much against my 'better' judgement I was persuaded to put ailerons on mine. Proper inset ones, hinged on the upper surface with a V shaped cutout on the lower surface to allow downward movement, rather than strip ailerons as they would look wrong. Despite that I kept the original very steep dihedral for 'atmosphere' with 50% differential they work perfectly well with no adverse yaw at all. Reasonably axial rolls included.  So don't believe the 'experts'. One says they don't work probably without trying it and the rest just parrot him. No sane person builds  a model plane because of what it WON'T do Also none of this, incidence included,  prevents you flying it in what is thought of as a 'vintage' manner. On a dead calm day mine will fly in gentle circles without touching the sticks for as long as you want Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 01/06/2020 08:13:48