Colin Leighfield

It did Trevor, a 6 blade. Have a look on YouTube, "Seafire FR47, The One and Only" and prepare to be blown away. There's one restored and flying in the USA and it's something else.

Quite right Trevor, I'll live with the prop!

That's not half bad though is it? The Mk24 (and 22) might be the best of all the Spitfires to model, because of the larger tailplane and fin from the Spiteful. I wonder if they thought about having a go at doing the five blade propeller?! I've been trying to reduce the fleet rather than increase it, but I don't think I could resist this one. It wouldn't be hard to turn it into a Seafire FR47 either, very attractive.

Simon, congratulations, that's quite an achievement.

There are a number of very suitable models in the Replikit range, now available through the Vintage Model Aircraft Company. The Keil Kraft Snipe is an ideal choice for Cox 049s and is the subject or another thread in this forum.

There are a number of very suitable models in the Replikit range, now available through the Vintage Model Aircraft Company. The Keil Kraft Snipe is an ideal choice for Cox 049s and is the subject or another thread in this forum.

One of the problems I think is that the producers of these programmes don't have a clue themselves. Unfortunately, the other thing is that what is obvious to us means nothing to most people viewing, generally they can't tell one plane from another. It's very rare to see a programme in which the aircraft shown have any relationship to the programme script, not only are the planes not the ones being described, they are often years out in time as well. I doubt very much if we'll see it improve though.

Peter, thank you for the advice.

On reflection, I think you are bang on with the point about the forward cg. In level flight the cg and cp must co-incide with each other, so I suppose a forward position has the same effect as lengthening the moment arm, to some degree. One other thing that surprises me about the 190D also is just how little elevator movement it needs, the reverse of what I'd expected with the very small tailplane and elevator. You live and learn, I suppose. Reading your write-up on Oodalally in RCME I noticed that your recommended movements are also not excessive, which says a lot about it's controllability. One question if I may Peter, is a 30 four stroke an option?

When you've finished this one Simon, you'll need to send in your Hamilcar with a squad of Commandos on board to take out the launching ramp! You've certainly got the knack with Depron.

Peter. That's an attractive design. I was interested in your use of a (by normal standards) relatively small tailplane which is entirely adequate because of the length of the moment arm and you describe this in RCME. I was lucky recently to acquire a partially finished Mick Reeves FW190D, which I have finished and flown. It has the scale size tailplane, which again is small. Models of 190s often seem to have larger than scale tailplanes. However this one is rock steady and responds beautifully to control inputs, it has no vices at all. It looks like the formula you describe, a long moment arm doesn't need a large tailplane area and this is certainly the case with the 190D. If I can clear the bench of ongoing projects I'll do this one, it's a handy size as well. I'm not fussy either way with I/C or electric, but I think I'd stick with I/C in this case.

If it's not too late, I'd like to see Tony do the Allison engined P51A/A36. It's hardly ever done, it's attractive in it's own right and includes the RAF Army Co-Op version with 4x20mm cannon in the wings. The P51B, C and D are all well covered, but the early versions are overlooked and they were successful in their own right, even if not as glamorous as the later high altitude, long range Merlin engined versions.

Geoff, I've used the chamfering/top-hinge approach with torque rods and don't see any problems. There have been conversations about "ding-proofing" the leading edges. Personally I think it's worth doing and I've used very light 5mm. carbon-fibre tubes, which are tough and give an excellent entry profile. Some might consider this expensive, but I had them left over from another project. Another way I've used is square spruce, in this case 4 or 5mm. would be ok I guess. Inserted into the leading edge it easily sands to profile. There are several ways to do this, it's whatever suits you best, I suppose.

Congratulations Caveman, you've gone to a lot of trouble to show us how you've put this one together and the finished result looks first-rate. I wouldn't dare show photos taken in my build shed, they'd give people heart- failure!

It's interesting watching everyone's angle on the fine points of putting this together, basically I stuck to the original line as described in the 2003 build article. I accepted a lot of work with the sandling block to flatten off the top of the modified triangular sections, but it didn't take too long. Overall this has gone together reasonably well and the wood quality in my pack was quite good. The fuselage sides were excellent, firm and springy without being heavy. The wing pieces were just right and gave me a good balance side to side without any special measures. Clearly though I've been luckier than some. I decided to retro fit the birch ply doublers, although because of the already built condition, they're limited to the area between F2 andF3. I'm not concerned about that though, it looks tough enough up front. However, I've decided not to deliberately weaken it by putting a motor hatch in there. There shouldn't be any need for routine access, everything's working and the prop's turning in the right direction, so if I ever do need to go in I'll cut it open, it's dead easy to do a reasonably invisible patch later. I've used push rods rather than snakes for rudder and elevator and they've worked out fine. As I think I mentioned before I've done the ailerons exactly as shown on the plan and the two receivers with all three servos are in the rear fuselage. There's plenty of scope up front to use the batteries to fine tune the cg. I've got 3S2200 and 3000, so there will be marked positions for each to allow for the different weights. I'm working on the cockpit now, with the pilots and seat mouldings from Vortex Vac-Forms, though I'm not getting too carried away with fine detail! Apart from that it's ready for covering and painting, should be on the way with that this week. Strewth, I might even have to fly it fairly soon! Where's the smelling salts?

Sorry for misrepresenting you Bob, I clearly did get the wrong end of the stick! It's an interesting subject though, wouldn't mind getting my hands on one even now, either size would do!

One of our regular forum members, Bob Cotsford, told me recently that he used to have the PFM Cranfield A1, the larger version. I had mentioned that I had flown a PFM Team Special biplane for many years and also the Giant Zlin, which prompted his recollection. I thought that Pat French produced some excellent models. (Economy Scale). Eventually he sold the business to Stagg Models in Northampton, I think, but sadly I don't think they ever did anything with it, but I might be wrong. He was also a keen motorbike man and bought the rights to build Metisse motorcycle frames from the Rickman Bros. He ran this business in Bristol very successfully until he sadly passed away a couple of years ago. The Cranfield A1 is a great subject, if little known and deserves to be resurrected. Although I totalled my Team Special many years ago, I've still got the Giant Zlin in repairable condition and recently acquired an unopened kit on EBay. It would be great to see these excellent designs re-launched by someone, though I suppose that it's unlikely.

They finished two of them with BoB Spitfire serials and squadron codes. Model Markings are offering those if you fancy doing one. I think it's a very attractive option, but it's given me another idea. I'm still visualising a dozen Tucanos in the air at Greenacres, all in the black colour scheme. Oo-er, sounds hysterical but it's potentially quite catastrophic. Duck!

Fair enough Phil, though it certainly isn't immediately obvious! I did see the photos and that clearly is an accurate scale model, the colour scheme is an attractive choice. I remain cautious abouy flying mine in company with a load of others in the same colours, so I'm going to bend the rules and do something different.

I'm looking at Mike's post and the picture I see definitely shows a two blader. However, it's a minor detail! I'm not getting too fastidious about detail because this model is a practical facsimile created by Nigel rather than true scale. The fuselage is significantly shallower than the full size and the wing has got a lot less taper. It is however a very good model and you can certainly see what it is intended to represent. Mine is nearly done.

You're right to be doubtful Geoff, no full size Tucano ever had a two bladed prop! The Tucano is an original Embraer design built under license by Shorts in Belfast. It was chosen in a comperition, a leading contender being the Britten Norman Firecracker which lost out. That is also a great subject for a model and it was sad that it didn't win, being a wholly British contender. I don't think that I've ever seen a model of it.

Back in again! One I've never seen modelled is the Blackburn Skua, (or even the Roc variant). It's got ideal proportions for a model and loads of character. Also in spite of it's mediocre reputation and obsolosence at the beginning of the war, the Fleet Air Arm had a surprising amount of success with it and as a dive bomber it did a lot of damage to the German ships in the Norwegian campaign. Definitely a subject worth consideration and a wealth of opportunity for scale detail for those inclined that way.

That's what you call a real aeroplane!

I know an ex 617 squadron Vulcan pilot who did a full term career with the RAF, finishing up on Victor tankers. Fascinating conversations, particularly in finding out just how capable the Vulcan was, as well as some of the things they got up to that are definitely on the secrets list! Incredible aeroplane.

As far as the front versus rear motor mount is concerned, because the motor could be mounted either way, I debated this with myself and in the end went with the front route, for no particular reason except perhaps greater familiarity. In the event of a prang. I can't really see much difference in the scale of the consequences, although it occurred to me that transmitting the shock further back could have it's own disadvantages! Also, if the substantial aluminium prop-driver got bent, I think it's very likely that the shaft might not fare too well either! Eeny-meeny-miny-mo kind of thing. With the model at the covering stage, I'm a bit concerned about the current advice on using ply doublers, it's a bit late. However, I understand Nigel's observations about the "squeeze" pressures with the grip needed for under-arm launching' (my next adventure)! in the area under the removable canopy hatch, which has got reduced lateral support. Bearing that in mind, I am going to insert doublers in that area made from very thin birch ply, which is "do-able". It will be interesting to see the revised design detail in Nigel's final up- dated version!