Robin Colbourne

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.

Would that have been to avoid having to handle warranty claims for engines that hadn't passed through that particular distributor?

Even if you had a Smart Car you could still fit a 16" span Simprop Zaunkönig (Wren) in it. Ailerons on the bottom wing make it pretty wild:

I write it on with a biro or thin Sharpie if necessary, if I'm getting an old model back into the air in a hurry.

There were several models in the 70s and 80s with ABS fuselages, in a top and bottom half. All were around 98 to 100" span, as I recall. The corona hand an unusual foam wing using a fully sheeted leading edge and trailing edge with cap strips between them. I think the others were fully sheeted. Edmonds Model Products (EMP) did: The Apogee The Halton Special The Corona Here is the Halton Special on the July 1977 RCM&E, The model was designed for a therma soaring competition at RAF Halton, hence the name. The Apex came later and had a slightly more pointed nose than the previous three. Plus one with a brushed 540 size motor on the fin. I'm not sure if this had a different name. The one pictured has a motor on the fin but may be home converted from a standard Apex glider. As can be seen, the wings on these models plugged on wire joiners in the fuselage sides. KeilKraft did the T-Tail Ivory Gull which appeared to use EMP fuselage. Avoncraft produced the Cub (60") and the Colt (72") which were smaller than the EMP gliders. They can be identified by the wing mounting on top of the fuselage and dowels for rubber bands. There was also a 100" Merlin and a Merlin Series 2 which was sold through MicroMold.