Robin Colbourne

Why not have a browse through Outerzone? Here is an advanced search for all non-scale pushers At the bottom of each model page there is a button for downloading the plan to print off. Although it is not building from scratch, a lot of converted Lidl Expanded Polypropylene (EPP) gliders have been made into pushers. EPP is forgiving and easily repaired, which are both big pluses for a first model. If you have weeks of repairs between flights, progress will be very slow. Really the best advice is to learn on a tough foamie such as a Bixler 2 and build your preferred model to be your second one. I picked up a well battered but very flyable Bixler 2 at the end of one of the Old Warden events. It was complete with six servos, speed controller, motor and prop. All for twenty quid! This is what an unbattered Bixler 2 looks like:

Possible; however Domsalvator is a very eloquent bot if he is one. For now, my money is that he simply lives in a different time zone to the majority of us on here. Time will tell.

Translating the Cyrillic characters on the crankcase, it is AMD, not AME as stated in the ebay listing on Worthpoint. I have seen this error repeated elsewhere. My guess is the A is Alyoshin, as Valentin Alyoshin was the engine designer, the M is Model and D is Dvigatel (engine in Russian). There is an informative thread on the AMD/Norvel engines here I first saw these engines in May 1993 when visiting St Petersburg in an effort to get half-size Mills type diesel engines made. They did send us a prototype, however they then stopped communicating and the next thing I knew was the engine we had specified was being imported and sold by someone else.

If you really don't have the option of joining a club, when they are back in stock, the Bixler 2 is a good beginner's model. It is hand launched and landed on its belly (which has a plastic protector for this). The pusher propeller keeps the motor and prop out of harm's way. If you start off with unpowered glides and work your way from there gradually increasing the power on each flight you might just teach yourself.

I used to fly a 40" span Galaxy Wizard on an Enya 15 from a hand launch with four standard size servos and a 4 cell AA nicad pack. The biggest hazard is trying to grip the oily fuselage sides (covered in exhaust residue) without the thing swinging down as you open the throttle to launch and the prop trying to slash your wrist. Without a long 35MHz transmitter aerial to contend with, a discus launch holding the wingtip may be a safer bet. Otherwise stick some coarse emery paper to the fuselage sides where you plan to hold it.

Extra Slim, this search brings up all the references to the Splatfire. It appears I wasn't imagining things, 'Norfolk & Good' did do a kit.

I was thinking this was by a shortlived kit manufacturer that had the 'joke' name, Norfolk & Good. It would have been in the early 2000s that I saw them at the Sandown show. A quick Google suggests that it was a Steve Dorling 'Dogfight double' from around 2009 though.

With regard to the fuel prices, in addition to the scarce or non-availability of some components, and increasing cost of others, plus the ever increasing cost and effort of complying with the health and safety requirements of fuel handling, spread across a diminishing number of users is no doubt playing a part.

Scary stuff!!! It makes those Westerns in which they carried around bottles of nitroglyerine in cotton wool-lined boxes seem pretty tame.

I appreciate that the multi-rotor pilots contracted to estate agents have a job to do, however it seems that some can't help but extend their brief to include a low level snoop around nearby properties. On two separate occasions, a local house that is going on the market soon, has had drones taking pictures, which has included low level BVLOS (Beyond Visual Line of Sight) flights around my garden and those of neighbours. I spoke to one of the pilots, who assured me everything he was doing was legal. As a result, I checked the CAA's rules, but cannot find anything which permits one person BVLOS or low level flying over adjacent properties, cars, people etc. (below roof top height). I can imagine if it was for a police or missing person search, rules may be different due to the urgency and importance of a success, however that was not the case in this instance. I suggested to the pilot that residents might reasonably think that an unknown drone flying around their house and garden could be 'casing the joint' to see if was worth burgling. The pilot dismissed this and said he thought I was being over dramatic, although my view seems to be shared with others locally who have experienced similar. Do these flights for estate agents have a separate set of rules that I have not yet found or are the pilots playing fast and loose with the current regulations?

Robert.s, there is a review here of a 'Fly Model' 1980mm span Tiger Moth which is pretty much 78". It could be the Green Models one rebranded, or it might be like yours. Robert.s, bear in mind they did two sizes of Tiger Moth, one 50" , the other 78", sop there may be differences depending which one they photographed. It is also possible that the previous owner decided to mak the undercarriage more scale-like.

Robert.s, bear in mind they did two sizes of Tiger Moth, one 50" , the other 78", sop there may be differences depending which one they photographed. It is also possible that the previous owner decided to mak the undercarriage more scale-like.

Pacific Aeromodels did a 78" Tiger Moth It was an Almost Ready To Fly (ARTF) by the looks of it.

When you look at the tail surfaces of Sopwith aircraft, it is hard to believe just how spindly they were. Here is a cutaway drawing of the Pup and a photo of an uncovered Camel tailplane. Noting this and the fact that the rotary engine puts the cylinders right next to the propeller (no carburettor betwix the two), it is no surprise that most models of rotary engined aircraft come out tail heavy.

First off it is worth wiping the inside of the carb bellmouth and top of the carb barrel with a cotton bud soaked in meths, propanol, or a bit of glow fuel to get the dust, etc. out. If you heat the carb with a hair dryer then you shouldn't heat it to the point that you damage the plastic parts. I put a drop or two of automatic transmission fluid in the carb before heating it, as this penetrates well without evaporating straight away as the other solvents will. Although I can understand why you wouldn't want to remove the engine to free it up, it is better to do this than risk damaging the engine or model. I usually find that I need to heat the carb from all sides to free up a well gummed engine. Also regardless whether it is the carb barrel or the crankshaft and piston you are trying to unstick, if you start with very gentle rocking a few degrees either way from the stuck point and increase a small amount each way as it starts to free off, you are less likely to do damage than going for full movement from the start.

Its probably the DB Sport and Scale Pup which is 77" span. The Mick Reeves Pup is 79.5". Sarik also do one at 79".

Martian, you reminded me of that question, "How do you torture an engineer?" Answer: "Tie him to a chair and fold a map up in front of him incorrectly."

Good point Gary, I hadn't noticed that!

Engine Doctor, thank you for all that information and advice, its really appreciated. At the moment I'm struggling to get the cylinder out of the crankcase. Presumably heating the alloy crankcase to expand it relative to the steel cylinder is the answer? I have run DC Wasps, albeit quite a while ago. A friend has one in his 4/3 size Ebenezer. I might have to take it out to our flying site to do run it, as our neighbours are fairly close.

The Frog 80 relied on an 'O' ring on the contra-piston to achieve a decent seal. It didn't work very well, hence a lot of modellers being put off by them. Maybe if a good conventional contra-piston was made it would get those Frog 80s that are left, running.

I've certainly done that with spanners when there was no room to get a socket in, however I can't see why anyone would try and turn the head of a bolt clamped in a vice, unless they are trying to shear the head off the bolt or break the spanners.

I have a Frog .049 that is hard to turn over for part of its rotation. I have had the head and backplate off but can't see anything amiss, nor can I see anything wrong with the crankshaft (e.g. being bent). I did notice that it lacks sub piston induction. Is this normal? Were there any differences between the Frog .049 and the DC Wasp apart from the name on the crankcase? This DC Wasp Review suggests that early engines had sub-piston induction whereas later ones didn't. I looked on Sceptreflight, however all the reviews there are for the earlier glow engine based upon the the Frog 80 diesel engine,

I don't know if this is the stuff, but Solarfilm did at one time sell a solvent to soften the adhesive on solarfilm so it could be stuck down without shrinking. Handy for applying trim lines and registration letters before Solartrim was produced.