Jump to content
Please be aware of scammers when using the Sale/Wanted forum areas

Reno Racer

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,304

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Reno Racer

  1. Reno Racer
    KC, I've looked at that plan, although clearly I know have the plans for this one, and I don't think the MHS plan has the retracting undercarriage done sale- a critical feature of the Wildcat. I might be wrong, but I ordered a 1985 copy of RCM&E which has the build of this MHS plan as a feature, so I'll know in a few days.
  2. Reno Racer
    The photo of the plan is probably quite deceiving, many of those changes in grain direction shown are actually a different former, drawn off centre from the one is drawn on top off. That said, clearly the formers cannot be solid and must have centres cut out to allow control runs, cockpit, servo tray and fuel tanks etc. considering everyone's suggestions and having a good look over the plan I thing the easiest would be to get the parts laser cut with a split horizontally through the centre datum line. That way I can build to top section first over the plan and fit the bottom have directly to this when removed from the board after skinning. It should also allow the wing and tailplane to remain square ( in the top half) and should allow easier fitting of the servo tray and more importantly that complex section around F3 where the complex retract mechanism bolts too and the wings are secured and aligned to the fuse. Still needs some fettling, for example the former F3a doesn't make sense. It's drawn solid and full fuselage shape, yet must be clipped at the top for the cockpit and much of the centre cut out to facilitate the servo tray. I suspect I will end up getting the parts laser cut, then having to modify as I go. If I get change I will probably modify the plan as I go and redraw a new plan. Just after a logic check to make sure my crazy idea above makes sense and I've not made a rash decision, before I shell out £170 quid for all the parts laser cut. Also seems I can get the canopy and cowl form the U.S., but with shipping is about £100! Might have to make plugs and make my own, or at least try and if that fails....... Edited By Reno Racer on 01/04/2015 20:07:53
  3. Reno Racer
    Sadly Dave, your right I think the death nails were banging into the engineering coffin so longer ago it's a dead horse now. The only thing I can change in this regard is my blood pressure! get back in the workshop to work on my planes.
  4. Reno Racer
    Erfolg, Valid and particularly resonant with me, your view on the value of Engineers in the UK, probably in retrospect a good reason I joined the forces, I certainly seem to be better paid than my civilian CEng counterparts, even though I feel I do less CEng (ing). I wonder if a set of kahooners by the Engineering Council in ensuring the title of CEng is protected by law, would stop everyone calling themselves an Engineer, even if they just repair washing machines, I have nothing against any engineering trades, but I doubt that John smith domestic engineer, actually does engineering at the level his title suggests. know an old whine and flys in the face of the modern trend of everyone either being a manager or calling themselves some inflated title - never worked out what a nail technican does! I might ask the IMechE if they can apply for Eng Tech status! I think that's the key in Europe and the U.S., Engineer is a protected title and you must be a PEng, CEng or Eur Ing to be properly use the title. We might then get back to proper meaningful titles, such as mechanic, fitter, engineer, technician etc, that actually mean something and describe what you actually do. With a protected title and status and engineers status is raised professionally and perhaps, pay will follow. Formally off my soap box now!
  5. Reno Racer
    Just had a thought, I could use blue foam as spacers- cut them, number them, then build the fuselage sandwich of foam and formers. Just as I started typed I had a chat with Falcon about laser cutting and the best way to do it. Cost seemed quite reasonable, so I now just need to decide to either spit horizontal, vertically, or get square section or round hole cuts into the centre of each former to build on a jig.?????
  6. Reno Racer
    Thanks Jon, confirmed my initial thoughts along the same lines. My gut feeling is to build two fuselage sides, but a top and bottom might prove easier to fit the wings and undercarriage mountings? - I'll see what the undercarriage plan looks like when it arrives, I think that has more detail on the former its mounted to, which seems to be where the centre of strength is. Dylan, I wonder if you fancy a laser cutting project? Parts look quite simple, so it should be fairly quick and easy, even if you cut all the fuselage formers in two.
  7. Reno Racer
    Thanks Dave, that helps particularly because I know you'll then enjoy the nice weather I'm looking at through the window!
  8. Reno Racer
    Dear all traditional warbird plan builders, I need your help to interpret a set of plans for a 1/6 Scale F4F Wildcat. At 73" wingspan, with a tuby fuselage is a nice size and should be well suited to my OS 22GT petrol swinging a nice size 3 bladed prop Known on US based forums as a complicated and unorthodox build, there seems to be little coverage on this plan and the build, less the original success Bob Karlsson had at US Scale events a good 30 years or so ago. Unlike many others, I won't let this one gather dust and am determined to build it. The plan seems to suggest the formers have no method of joining them to each other, less the balsa sheeting. I can see no stringers, internal structures etc to hold in to shape prior to skinning. To me this looks like a recipe for a banana shaped plane, but it must have worked for Bob all those years ago. I have attached pictures of the plan below, in the hope that other can either shed light of how the fuse is constructed, or offer suggestions on alternative, but close to the plan alterations. Edited By Reno Racer on 01/04/2015 13:29:57
  9. Reno Racer

    Reno Racer posted a gallery image in Member Albums

  10. Reno Racer

    Reno Racer posted a gallery image in Member Albums

  11. Reno Racer

    Reno Racer posted a gallery image in Member Albums

  12. Reno Racer
    Typically, now I'm on leave the weather is rubbish- what happened to all those sunny low wind days watched drift by through the window at work! I did manage 3 visits to the field in the last week, before the wind and rain started. Had a few good trimming flights with the Escapade MX, ran in the engine for the funfighter and put a fair few lipos through the EFlite Advance, PK spitfire, Habu and Wildcat, although the PK wildcat has been sold to a fellow club member. I wish the weather would clear, I have maidens to do on my HET F-20 Tigershark, Cambrian ME109 and new LX models 47" span F4F Wildcat. The engine on my H9 Denight Special also needs a good run, it's not flown since last year. I suspect the day I go back to work it will be 12+ degrees and the wind will be less than 5 mph!
  13. Reno Racer
    Completely agree with Jon. Slightly off, but hopefully follows the same logic- I've had a Pulse XT40, Escapade 40 and now Escapade MX, all powered by an ASP61 FS, which technically is towards the bottom end of the power range suggested, much like an 80FS would be on a 60 size version. All flew really well and certainly the current ASP 61 FS powered Escapade MX can do huge loops and although not endless verticals, it's sufficient and makes you use the throttle and fly by the wings rather than drag the plane around by brute force. I would imagine an 80 FS would be equally at home in a 60 size. Edited By Reno Racer on 31/03/2015 21:19:26 Edited By Reno Racer on 31/03/2015 21:20:01
  14. Reno Racer
    It can be just as quick to build a traditional kit, this Cambrian ME109 took a week ( maybe an hour or so on most nights), including glassing with PolyC and painting.   Edited By Reno Racer on 31/03/2015 10:06:07 Edited By Reno Racer on 31/03/2015 10:07:51
  15. Reno Racer

    Reno Racer posted a gallery image in Member Albums

  16. Reno Racer
    Since flying the pants off my PK Wildcat, I have long wanted to build a larger balsa/lying version for a small petrol engine, (OS 22GT) but found very little available less the Bates 1/5 scale ( too big and too expensive) and the German Fisher version ( far too expensive). I suspect the complicated undercarriage has put many kit manufacturers and ARF Companies off, which is a shame because the aerodynamic configuration makes for a well balanced and easy to fly warbird. I'be just order the plans for the Bob Karlsson Wildcat at 1/6 scale (73" span) and the accompanying plan for the undercarriage. Beyond some US forums claiming its a complicated and unorthodox build, I can find little info in this kit, only that when Bob first flew his version in the 70s at scale events, it was well received. I don't mind a complicated build, it will be on the bench after a Philip Noel Mirage 2000c ( modified from turbine to 90mm EDF). Can anyone help with info?? I have a kit version of the LX 1200mm span foamie version with undercarriage and folding wings arriving soon as inspiration       Edited By Reno Racer on 30/03/2015 20:21:42 Edited By Reno Racer on 30/03/2015 20:25:07
  17. Reno Racer
    Always wanted to be a pilot since I can remember and joined my local ATC at the earliest opportunity. School, college, then university set me on an engineering path. Looking back there are distinct decision points in time, when I could have gone in a number of directions. At university, I applied to join the University Air Squadron, but was too late in that year, so joined the Army's University Officer Training Corps instead. On graduation, I applied and passed the selection boards for all three services. The RAF board suggested a start date at Cranwell almost 9 months after I graduated, the Navy was similar, the Army's response arrived three days after finishing the selection board and had a start date at Sandhurst in two months time. As a poor ex student filling in on temp jobs, it's easy to see why I chose the Army, as an Engineering Officer. 17 years later, I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the Army and maintained by Chartered Engineer status. About 8 years ago, my love for aviation was rekindled and model flying started where previous gliding and PPL left off. Now a senior old fart officer (Lt Col), I'm looking towards a new second carrer in aviation. Turning full circle, I am in the throws of setting up my own aviation company operating Cold War fighter jets and offering fighter jet experience flights. A friend has a twin seat vampire and Europe's only flying T-33. These will be joined by a Jet Provost in time. Would I do it all again?.... Yes, but maybe move towards my new business a lot sooner!
  18. Reno Racer
    John S, good point, although I don't think we'll be at war with Russia, anytime soon. For us this is a rise of a resurgent Russia. However, from a Russian perspective, this is just the continuation of what we called the Cold War, just with a 20 year drift on their part since 89. Not just kids by the way, some of us on here are still serving, and some of us are intercepting the Bears.
  19. Reno Racer
    I'm afraid any F-22s are wishful thinking, they are too expensive to buy and operate, we can just about afford 4 Sqns of F-35. typhoon is OK, remember it's first flight, as the EAP, was in 1984. That said, a Tornado F3 could still happily shoot down a Bear. At what point in history, I'd we have the best aircraft, lightning? Well err no. Short range missile, ineffective radar and very short range. In fact through our history, our beloved aircraft have always been behind the curve when the actually entered service, the one exception was the GR1 Tornado. Even the beloved Vulcan, designed as a nuclear bomber to attack the British targets of Moscow, was obsolete as it entered service, it could simply have not survived the Soviet air defences around Moscow (nuclear tipped AAMs). An early RAF report claimed its chance of success was 10%. One of the reasons whay we bought Submarone launched Polaris off the US. CS, towards the end of its service life, the Harrier was a pain to operate and maintain. In contest against a near peer or peer enemy, it was just unsurvivable and not very effective. Besides which, we have to wait a few years yet for at least one of the QEC carriers to be online. f35 is the best aircraft we can afford and plays to its technological quality edge, we can't afford mass anymore.
  20. Reno Racer
    its 5mm, i think FTs paper foamboard is 4mm. It shouldn't make much difference to a scratch build Edited By Reno Racer on 11/12/2014 06:27:29
  21. Reno Racer
    i bought, assembled and flow the FT Baby Blender kit. Great, well thought out, innovative and cheap kit. However, their paper based posterboard is not that hard wearing. I have downloaded all their plans and am currently building their Bloody Wonder. I have found that hobbycraft shops sell A1 sized posterboard for £4 per sheet, or 2 sheets for £7. 2 sheets is enough for most of their planes. More importantly, it is not a paper foam sandwich, but a plastic foam sandwich, exactly the same as FTs, and same dimensions, but plastic is much better suited to UK weather and is easier to paint/add decals. **LINK**
  22. Reno Racer
    WOW! That will be a satisfying build.
  23. Reno Racer
    in AUX-CHAN ch 6 is set to NULL (FLAP-TRM) hope that helps
  24. Reno Racer
    Just checked mine on the T8J Tx. Seems i ended up using Flaperon mix on Ch 1 and 6 as below. I'll enter as displayed on screen: FLAPERON MIX-ACT RATE AIL1 +50%(L) +100%(R) AIL2 +100% (L) +50% (R) FLP2 +100% FLP1 -100%
  25. Reno Racer
    I have differential set on a biplane using a 6 channel RX and T8J. if i remember it using channel 1 and 6 and the details of how to set differential (i think) is n the T8J and T6J manuals.
×
×
  • Create New...