[Andy Conway Bae Hawk]

For definitive details on model setup, maybe consider buying a copy of the plan from the PSSA? 

https://www.pssaonline.co.uk/product/bae-hawk-t1/

[Would this make a decent PSS model?]

Metro Repro in Carliol Square in Newcastle can definitely scan full size model plans and save as pdf (or Tiff etc). 

I've used them many times and they are very accommodating. 

 

[Limbo Dancer Alternatives]

It's not easy to do that due to the bulk of the Lipo pack and the confined area where it can fit in the fuselage. It is however possible to place the Rx pack under the rudder and elevator servos. It lives there on my Limbo... 

[Did OS ever make a 90FS open rocker ?]

The first 3 4-strokes that OS sold commercially were the open rocker 60 and 75 and then an enclosed rocker 80 (still with the cam gear to the rear of the cylinder). The 90 followed those 3 in around 1984 and was definitely fitted with a rocker box. 

[Would this make a decent PSS model?]

Fairly sure Chris is a member of this forum. If you search his name you will be able to find his account and message him for details. 

His model certainly looked the part and flew nicely once trimmed. 

[Would this make a decent PSS model?]

It's already been done, so the answer must be yes! 

This was the maiden of a plan built model last weekend at the PSSA meeting on the Great Orme. The model was built by Chris Collis to an enlarged plan designed by Paul Sampson. 

[Slingsby Petrel 3.4 metre designed by Chris Williams]

Let's hope it doesn't crash the model or burst into flames... 

[Slingsby Petrel 3.4 metre designed by Chris Williams]

This is what I think a genuine S3003 looks like. You can see the difference in shape. 

[Slingsby Petrel 3.4 metre designed by Chris Williams]

On 17/09/2022 at 23:27, Peter Garsden said:

Thank you for that Chris. That is how I  should have built the tailplane like the fin, but I don't think it will make much difference.

 

So to the fuselage servos. Unlike the Flamingo whose rear cockpit slopes acutely backwards, the Petrel is more upright, which does not give any room for screwing down the servo screws and horn central screw whilst in situ, so the ply tray should be removable. I am sure there are many ways of doing this but I opted for 2 blocks of balsa block, shaped to the sides of the fuselage which is tricky due to the curve topped off with a piece of 1.5mm ply to hold the screws, which I put in at an angle to give access for a screw driver.

 

 

You can see that I used a shaping tool to trace the curve of the fuselage once I had measured and cut the servo tray. Tricky because one has to make allowances for the side 3mm spruce rail, and the formers. There is room for the large old faithful Futaba S3003 which are only £8 each.

 

 

This shows that the tray has to fit just where the 3mm spruce spar and the ply tab are so cut outs have to be made. One can also see that I have omitted the cross members to allow easier access to the space in between F4 and F5.

 

 

This shows better the  cross members that I left out until the servos are fitted.

 

 

You can just about see that I have drilled and screwed in the servo tray with 4 screws at an angle so that when the top plywood skin is on I can unscrew from outside so as to remove the tray in one piece.

 

 

Pete those 2 servos in the Fuselage don't look like genuine Futaba S3003s to me. The shape and features on the case are wrong and the grommets are different to the genuine Futaba types. It's hard to tell but it also looks like you might have installed the brass ferrules into the grommets the wrong way up. The flared out end should be in contact with the top of the ply plate, not the mounting screw head. 

[Laser Engines - Technical questions]

Nothing to be lost by quickly checking the tappet gaps? 

[Peter Rake 36” Sopwith pup conversion setup]

Just for interest I am a fan of Peter Rake's designs. 

Here is his Isaacs Fury that I built the prototype of and his Sopwith Camel that I have in build. 

[Peter Rake 36” Sopwith pup conversion setup]

But there are multiple ways to achieve a usable result in electric flight. One person's shopping list is not the definitive list. Imagine if 10 people give the OP a completely different list. That would be unusable and confusing so perhaps some knowledge may be able to allow the OP to make a more informed decision themselves.

Of course the easy answer is just to recommend ringing George at 4-max and ask him to put together a complete power system which he is happy to do as many members of this forum have done successfully in the past. 

[Peter Rake 36” Sopwith pup conversion setup]

Instead of just giving you a shopping list maybe a short explanation of the theory will enable you to understand how to size power systems? It's irrelevant whether they are brushed motors or brushless by the way so there is no need to be baffled. 

If we consider the old brushed power system that used a Speed 400 with 2.33:1 gearbox. I will assume that you used an 8 cell Nickel based battery and something like a 9 x 6 prop. 

Graupners Speed 400 7.2V variant has a kV figure of 1762 revs per volt. Assuming the old 8 cell pack maintained a terminal voltage of 9.2V at full throttle, that means the motor turns at 16210rpm, ignoring slip. 

The 2.33:1 gear ratio means the prop will turn at 6957rpm. Using an online pitch speed calculator gives a full throttle flying speed of 47mph, ignoring drag etc. That all sounds in the ballpark for a WW1 biplane. 

 

The recommended maximum current for a Speed 400 motor was around 9A so to see how much power was used to fly the model using the above system we do 9.2 x 9 = 82W.

Peter Rake designs commonly end up around 20oz AUW, so the power loading in the brushed case was 65W per lb. 

 

If you wanted to use a 2S Lipo and keep the same size prop, then you could go for a brushless motor capable of more than 82W and a kV rating that will turn the prop at a near equivalent speed to the geared 400. There are lots of around 100W outrunner motors with a kV of 1000 that will do the job. As an example look at 2212 size motors with the 1000kV rating. 

[Peter Rake 36” Sopwith pup conversion setup]

That setup is way way too much for a 3 foot Peter Rake bipe. It's in no way equivalent to a geared Speed 400 setup. You only need around 80W to fly your model, not 350 to 400.

 

[F4C and F4H World Championships Norway]

.... 

[Airspeed Ambassador]

I thought the advice was to land immediately if something falls off in flight? 

[Diesel engine, could use some help.]

I found with mine that it was a ready starter if you give a tiny prime (2 or 3 drops only) against the side of the piston with the exhaust ports closed. I'd make my own tank from sheet tinplate and brass tube as sold by K&S. 

[Diesel engine, could use some help.]

It's an AE engine, not an AM. Both designed by Dennis Allen but the AE designs were made in the early 1990s.

[Rans S9 Chaos- Flying Characteristics.]

13 hours ago, Peter Miller said:

My tail planes are always at the same incidence as the wings. 

 

I know that this may sound obvious so forgive me if I am too obvious. The chord line is from the centre of curvature on the leading edge t the trailing edge and this is always on the aircraft datum line. Thrust line and tail plane on the same line.

 

Yes, my thrust lines are always 0 side thrust, 0 up and down thrust. I don't know of any full size aircraft with side thrust and I was interested to see film of American Navy fighters taking off with bootfulls of right rudder.

 

You could try some right thrust.  I would be most Interested to know the effect of that.  The comment on one wing being heavier is interesting but with the skill you have I would doubt that.

 

I do confess that I never remember the check my wings for off centre balance. Haven't had a problem with that to my knowledge.

The Zlin Z50L has 3 degrees sidethrust according to the old MAP scale drawing. 

[Taxi runs and maiden flights]

If the model is built correctly and all the surfaces and systems have passed a pre-flight check then I fly. 

 

I generally don't taxi my models to and from the runway for safety reasons so a taxi test would tell me nothing.  

 

Again,  a test hop to me seems counter-productive.  More likely to end up with the model running out of runway and ramming the scenery. 

 

They were built to fly! 

[What plane is this??]

I have a nose for aeroplanes! If the builder had stuck to the plan it would have been easy to identify as the Spook is a very distinctive shape.  But we got there in the end! 

[What plane is this??]

Jim, nice to hear from you.  Yes if you compare fuselage and tail shapes they are the same. Since no vintage models had ailerons I am saying that the builder of the model in the OP has modified the wing to have straight dihedral and ailerons. Sacrelige! 

[What plane is this??]

It's a Spook, but it's hard to identify because the builder has straightened out the gull type polyhedral and fitted ailerons.  

[Legal Drone Flyer Threatened with Gun]

Just in the interests of accuracy, let's see what the first three posts on the Gatwick drone thread said....

 

[Retracts]

E-flite units have a long history of one of the control units giving up on many forums with international contributors. Not sure I'd use them with confidence based on the reports.