Colin Leighfield

Erfolg, thank you for your well informed comments. Overall, I still think that we are pretty well served, but I don't deny that things go awry and because in the wider scheme of things we are a small market with expectations of opportunity to purchase from a very wide choice of relatively sophisticated products, we are likely to experience some inconsistencies every now and then. I'm interested in your observations about GS, because I previously bought from GC and haven't seen any difference, but that may simply be the luck of the draw based on the items I purchased at the time!

I do get a bit nervous if we criticise too much, although I don't question the validity of concerns expressed by colleagues, Overall though, I've had very little to complain about with my purchases over the years. Even if we think some of the mark-ups are high, in truth they have to be to make any reasonable profit, we are a small market by most standards and we make diverse demands. Overall, I think that in real terms prices are the lowest I've ever seen and products generally good value. My most recent purchase was from GS, prices were very reasonable, quality excellent and delivery in three days. Quite happy with MHS also. I haven't yet purchased from HK in the UK but I've no complaints with things brought from HK in the Far East. I've seen the comments about Amazon, but still can't see how this is different to EBay, perhaps I'm missing something obvious.

I'm with Erfolg. End of as far as I am concerned.

I hope all of this doesn't mean that BEB knows something that we don't, because if not I personally hope that it won't go any further. In governmental terms we are an insignificant number and hardly likely to warrant administrative time in cost/ benefit terms. The risks we describe are primarily concerned with 1. Human error, which always exists but demonstrably over many years is statistically insignificant in consequences, serious as they may be when they happen. 2. Incompetence, which you will never eliminate in any voluntary activity. However, the evidence is that existing arrangements within clubs and local authorities control this reasonably well. Many would say that it is already too onerous in some cases. 3. Malovelent intent, e.g. terrorism. Licensing would do nothing to mitigate that risk. Personally I don't see any benefit in this idea and hope it will now be allowed to quietly disappear.

I think the basic problem is largely a result of the opportunity to choose from a very wide range of options in models and all of the components and accessories associated with them that we now expect and benefit from. The only type of business which stands any chance of satisfying this demand is a large one, a small one doesn't have the resources or the space needed to carry large stocks of everything in the hope that they can please everyone, because they will finish up carrying things on the shelves for a long time and never selling all of it. The only way that a large business can survive is to go into mail order, because local modellers and passing trade will never be enough to keep the business going. I buy a lot on line, but deliberately buy as much as I can from the only remaining model shop that I am aware of within 15/20 miles, bearing in mind that I live within 10 miles of the second biggest city in the country. Most likely the situation I describe is typical for most people, from my point of view the down side of mail order is the lack of opportunity to look at what I am buying and this is a particular issue with choosing balsa wood. Sadly we do not provide a sufficiently concentrsted market for small local traders to stand much chance of success unless they have some particular speciality or run models alongside some other potentially profitable line. Some things are inevitable, however we need to remember that our relative rarity has some advantages. If we were ten times as many we would still not be huge, but the flying site and public nuisance issues might become unbearable and the regulatory issues kicked off by BEB in another thread would become unavoidable. Almost certainly our already to some degree restricted opportunities to fly would become even more limited. This is not a perfect world and all changes which are generally for the better will have some negative consequences and the current supply side issues surely reflect that.

I don't see any problem with the three part wing. As long as the mating surfaces are reasonably true and gaps completely filled with epoxy, it isn't going to break at the wing roots. There shouldn't be any particular need to lengthen the ply braces by much either, if there's that much load being transmitted through them the gluing along the mating faces couldn't haven't been very good in the first place. Epoxy doesn't bend that much and I certainly wouldn't use PVA for that job, although it's fine for the dihedral braces. I've already got thoughts on my next o/d build based on Nigel's ideas as soon as I finish the Toucano and that will definitely have the three piece wing. It won't be detachable though, at this size I don't need it to be.

Don't get depressed Ruprect Spode, I know that you were only trying to be helpful! You're dead right about Aldi, they often come up with good stuff.

I don't understand what is the difference between buying off Amazon or EBay? We've all been doing that for years and that's completely indiscriminate anyway. It's probably only the anoraks like us that browse for these things after all, because you only find what you are looking for.

It's been clear for some time that terrorists can buy over the counter all that they need to create a highly effective radio controlled flying bomb with a useful range. Licensing isn't going to eliminate that risk. The last thing we need is even more bureaucratic systems and paperwork employing non-productive civil servants. Surely we're restricted quite enough as it is. Finally, what do you do about privare second-hand deals on EBay etc? We've already got the lunatics in charge of the asylum in our existing UK and EU politics, don't give them even more to stick their dead hands on and thoroughly screw up.

Don't worry, you're not alone. I'm still trying to finish one I started in 1986.

GrahamC, it's worth reading the book on the P51 by Lee Atwood (or Atwell, I've forgotten), the head of the design team on the originally British funded project. He said that the design of the variable inlet/outlet ventral cooling system was the main reason for the high speed of the Mustang, not the laminar flow wing which is normally given the credit and which he said with hindsight was not much use. The cooling system based on the principles developed by Professor Meredith at Farnborough was worth about 35 mph. Although fast in level flight, the limiting Mach no. of the P51 was about Mach.82, lower than the Spitfire whichwas flown up to Mach.92 eventually. Co-incidentally Supermarine found the same thing when they built the (good looking)Spiteful , derived from the Spitfire but with a laminar flow wing. That also proved to have a lower limiting Mach no than the Spitfire, which was probably because the wing of thenSpit was remarkably thin. (Credit to Mitchell). Good on Tony for doing this one! A Mustang with a Spitfire 24 wing would have been very interesting. I've got the plans for the Frog Mustfire somewhere, must have a go at it sometime.

With that wing loading, I'm surprised you don't have to tie it down to prevent it floating into the air standing still! It's got to work, you've done a great job there.

To be fair, I couldn't fault what I received, the CNC cutting was good and so was the grading of the wood. Bearing in mind that even for an obviously popular exercise like this mass build, in commercial terms the numbers aren't huge and keeping costs reasonable can't be easy. This episode with the wing panels seems to be a bit odd, particularly as mine were the correct thickness, nicely cut and a decent balance of light weight and suitable stiffness. I'm sure it will get sorted out. I'm well on with mine and frustrated that because of having to be away for a while I can't do anything with it for the next three weeks! At least hopefully by then I might be able to get in the shed without contracting terminal pneumonia. I'm looking forward to meeting the other participants at Greenacres in June. Fortunately there's enough time in between to build another one if I total this one in the meantime. (It's far from impossible)!

Mike. I'd definitely query this, or get down to your closest model shop and find some 3/8" balsa of the appropriate hardness. Whatever, good luck.

I bought the CNC set and additional wood pack and didn't have to laminate the wing panels, they were cut from 3/8" balsa. I don't think that this is a good idea, however you do it. Whatever adhesive you use, it must surely be essential to keep the panels pressed down flat under something heavy overnight because I think warping will be inevitable otherwise. If there's no alternative, I personally would use balsa cement. I don't argue with the advantages of PVA, Aliphatics etc, but over a large surface area it's more than strong enough, light when dry and it's easy to sand. I actually used Uhu Hart to glue my 3/8" wing panel pieces together and it's fine. I did leave them pinned down on the board overnight, but afterwards was able to carve and sand them without anything coming off, contrary to the problem that Nigel Hawes reported. He said that initially he put the wings together with cyano and when sanding afterwards, the tip panels broke off because the adhesive was too brittle. That certainly didn't happen with the balsa cement. I used 5 minute epoxy to glue the two panels together, PVA for the ply braces. As mentioned earlier, I have fitted the wings with leading edges made from Carbon Fibre tube 5mm od/4.5 mm i/d, attached with gap filling cyano, blended in with light weight filler. I used this on the Fizza I built from the free plan years ago and it was perfect. I've still got the Fizza. The wings are perfect and ready for covering. I have to say that I wouldn't build them from 4.5 mm and laminate together, I'd be looking for some 3/8"/10mm balsa to do the job properly, but that's my personal view.

Mine is going together without many problems, I haven't had to alter anything so far in the fuselage. I have had to take my time though, because not everything is immediately obvious from the plan and the original build articles. The thing that took most time for me has been getting the ailerons right. I think there were earlier comments about it probably being better if they hadn't been pre-cut and I agree with that. It did cause problems in carving and sanding, but that might be down to a lack of skill on my part. I've sorted it by making new ones from trailing edge stock, which I'm pleased with. I've used carbon fibre tube 5mm. o/d, 4.5mm. i/dfor the leading edges, which give a perfect shape and useful resistance to impact damage. I know that the plan suggests a l/e radius of 4.5mm, but I think a perfect 5mm. is close enough! I've decided to stick my neck out and finish it with sanding sealer, dope and tissue and then paint it rather than use film covering. I don't expect a real weight penalty and I have a better choice then for colour schemes. As far as that goes, I was attracted by the Battle of Britain Spitfire scheme used on two of the RAF Tucanos, but that has lead me to the decision to use a fictional idea based on the Seafire FR47s flown from HMS Triumph in Korea, supporting the US 7th. fleet in 1950. That was the last time the RN used the Seafire in combat operations, so it's an appropriate reason and I think it's an attractive scheme. I should finish the airframe this week, but will have to park it for three weeks then because I will be abroad. Hopefully I'll get the finishing and painting done end February/ early March. I'm enjoying doing this, despite all of the balsa dust I'm breathing in! It's certainly not the most complex project I've ever done by a long stretch, but it's great to be part of a wider movement and I really enjoy reading everybody's questions and sharing experiences. This mass-build is a great idea.

Looking good! Keep going Simon,

I've started on mine. Got the wing panels planed and sanded, ready to join. Started on the fuselage. I've decided to forget the undercarriage, the encouraging indications about under-arm launching have convinced me to try it. (Challenging my nervous tendencies). I've got no problems with slithering it on the grass for landing, the Fizza's always been fine with it. Is anyone considering a dope and tissue finish? It might make some of the choices on alternative finishes easier and I can't see weight being an issue with a 1250Kv motor?

Erfolg, that's a really enterprising project. I assume that means you intend to use a pusher propeller, I can see that a ducted fan would be a struggle with this design. You could combine it with some Estes rocket motors to get it off vertically! You have my greatest respect, I've never seen a model of this one before.

Erfolg, is that a Bachem Natter I see in your photo? Have you flown it? I've got a huge block of blue foam in the loft and I recently got myself a hot wire cutter. Must give it a try.

Another one of those names that seems to have been around as long as I have been messing with model planes, back into the 50s. Didn't he do full size as well, I seem to remember him flying a Stolp Starlet? Very sad news. RIP.

I congratulate you Simon for achieving so much with Depron! A couple of years back I had a go at making a ducted fan Hawker Hunter out of Depron. There was quite a lot of sanding to shape. I confess that I gave up and binned it. The thought of Depron puts my teeth on edge, lord knows why. At some point I must stop being silly and have another go. Seeing what you've done with it makes me think and the weight advantage is obvious!

Both the plane and the Whittle by-pass engine would have been world leading. Cancellation was utter stupidity and, much as I admire him, Barnes-Wallis didn't help. The definitive work on this is the recently published "Miles M.52 - Gateway to Supersonic Flight", written by Eric Brown and co-authors. It's a compelling read.

Erfolg. You're quite right about the Me.262, the wing sweep was a solution to a cg problem and nothing to do with compressibility issues. In fact it's critical Mach number was lower than that of a Spitfire anyway, regardless of it's top speed in level flight. It wasn't much quicker either than the Heinkel 280 with similar engines and a straight wing. (It did look nicer though). Sadly the acquisition of German data on swept wings and compressibility was used as an excuse by Sir Ben Lockspeiser's committee to cancel the Miles M.52, when it was almost ready for it's first flight. They said that this information had made the M.52 obsolete and irrelevant before it flew. Complete stupidity, I don't think there's any doubt that it would have been the first aircraft to go supersonic in level flight, look at the F.104 and F.16 as evidence that there's nothing essential about swept wings! What is more the M.52 had been designed in a way that different wings could easily be adapted to the fuselage because the attachment was to a circumferential beam in the fuselage, which meant that different wings could be almost bolted on and off. I'm digressing and revealing things that make me bitter. Winkle Brown's analysis is bang on for me! Cheers!

Simon. You're quite right, when I said that there was no dihedral I was referring to the top of the wing, in fact the upward taper of the wing underside does give a degree of dihedral, I hadn't envisaged that you'd got it the other way around! I appreciate that you've achieved amazing lightness in creating this and that certainly eases hand launching, (which I'm hopeless at), but personally for that first flight I'd definitely be looking for a smooth surface to get a gentle R.O.G. and gingerly sort out any detail trimming issues. I've got total confidence that you will make this work and have a good flyer, which is more than I can say about my own confidence in the Wellesley, without even mentioning the 70" Westland Welkin waiting for the cg to be finalised. (Another story).