Sheldon Holy

Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 07/05/2019 15:13:18: Posted by Percy Verance on 07/05/2019 13:53:38: I take it you're referring to the artf hardware there Jon? I have read moans about that before. The Wot kits I've had did have quite usable accessories......... yup. I wasnt at all impressed by the stuff that came with my AWXL. Sheldon, i sure do and its rapidly becoming my go to model. I flew it on sunday in fact and set up a mix to help with landing. Due to the big fat engine up front its a bit nose heavy so tends to land very fast as i run out of elevator power when it slows down. As flight performance at all but landing speed is great i dont want to alter the balance so added some up elevator using the flap/elevator mix. As i dont have flaps i only get the up trim, but this combined with more faith in the engine gave me much nicer landings last time out. I just have to remember to click the mix off if i go around as it will climb like crazy if i leave it on Interesting, I bet it sounds good too. It seems the Wot designs are usually happy being a bit overweight, which is one reason I chose it for my turboprop. What does the OS weigh? Have you tried flaperons? On mine I've replaced all the supplied clevises for Kavan M3 ones and moved the two elevator servos to the tail.

Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 07/05/2019 10:00:15: I have flown the Wot4 XL, AWXL, WWXL and Wot4 Extreme. All were great performers in the air but the quality of the kit, and especially the hardware, was poor. The choice of colours is also an interesting one on the middle two. This could explain the poor sales? I customer told me that the WWXL was discontinued but apparently noone told Chris himself as it came as a shock when the customer called him for help.     Do you still have your AWXL with the OS four cylinder engine? Personally I love the colour scheme on the AWXL and prefer it to the standard size model, but that's entirely subjective. The kit is cheap and quality is about as I'd expect, however the quality of the construction is quite good, I thought. Still, you have to fuel proof the front end and do various other bits if you want the model to last. I find that most ARTF kits I've had, no matter the manufacturer or price, really aren't built to last as a homebuilt model might be. Therefore, I've made various improvements on models that I want to last. My Hangar 9 Super Cub has been as good as gold after some strengthening and other improvements, for what is basically just an overpriced Seagull kit. The main thing with all ARTFs I've had has been covering. I've never seen any sort of extra adhesive (balsaloc etc...) used and so the covering always comes off at the edges after some time. The stripes on my AWXL tried to fall off when I took it out the box... One thing I don't quite understand is why sell the kits with poor quality hardware, such as clevises that will make the model crash? You'll end up with upset customers with broken models, and then once word spreads around everyone will have to factor the cost of extra hardware into the cost of the kit, so it's a false economy. I'd imagine that the main reason for poor sales of the XL models (Wot 4 Xl aside, as they seem to be everywhere) is that people buying a 30-40cc size model will usually be going for scale or 3D. Not that many people have such models as normal Sunday hacks. Hopefully it works out with Ripmax. I highly doubt they will go bust but I expect a lot of restructuring will be happening, in which time other distributors such as Perkins and CML could pick up the product lines. Edited By Sheldon Holy on 07/05/2019 14:08:54 Edited By David Ashby - Moderator on 08/05/2019 16:04:59

Does this forum include the XL? If so, here is some progress on mine.   All normal Acro Wot XL assembly, with some exceptions. I had a power plant available for a model of this size and, for many reasons, I really wanted an Acro Wot XL. The Acro Wot is probably the nicest flying power model I've ever flown, and it looks great too. Even the foam one flies beautifully. The ARTF is also very cheap for the size, and whilst it is a "budget" kit, there is really nothing to complain about quality wise. All ARTF models come from the same factory anyway, Hangar 9 for example is made in the Seagull factory...   Anyway, the Chris Foss ARTFs are out of stock everywhere and many have no delivery dates, Acro Wot XL included. Luckily I found a kit at a model shop in Germany, it cost an extra £50 or so but still worth the money. Unfortunately, it arrived without the cowl or landing gear in the box which appears to be a mistake from the factory. No reply from the model shop, so I guess that's that. Anyway, I found a set of Alphawing Xtra Wot size landing gear at SMC which is a near perfect fit, and I am making my own cowling anyway....   All normal so far. And then I made a hole in the front.... ... Because I want to fit this: It's a P20 with a CNC Modelparts turboprop unit. I've always wanted a turbine (who doesn't!) but no local flying sites are suitable. Turboprops are another several levels of interesting higher for me, especially this miniature PT-6 style unit with a free secondary turbine. I like how the engine is backwards, amongst other things (did I mention it's a turboprop?!). Some considerations: - No vibration from the turboprop and they are surprisingly quiet, usually quieter than a two stroke petrol - They drink fuel, this will need a litre tank for a safe 8 minute flight. Also it's long, so the turbine sits where the tank normally would. Luckily the fuselage on this model is a good size with loads of room for the turbine and a 1L tank to sit on the CG, with heaps of room left for batteries etc... - Engine/gearbox weighs about 1450g, so about the same as the NGH 38cc four strokes that sometimes go in these models.   I felt it necessary to at least try and make a slightly interesting engine mount, so I came up with the following:   I need to tidy up the hatch, sort a cowl (plan on carving blue foam and then glassing) as well as sorting out suitable ducting to ensure the airflow to the turbine intake is isolated from the hot section.    I also fitted dual elevator servos at the tail and cut the tail post to properly epoxy the horizontal stabiliser in. CAing it in place seemed inappropriate as it wasn't a 100% snug fit anyway.   Another reason I went for this model is I already have everything I need. I will be going for a dual receiver setup as per my other larger model (H9 super cub). One receiver and battery for each half of the plane, fully independent. I had to stagger them to make the fit:   And that's where I've left it for the evening. I will pick this project back up when I have some time, but hopefully not too long. The gubbins for the turbine (lipo, fadec and pump) don't take up much room and the tank fits nicely:       Edited By Sheldon Holy on 07/05/2019 00:04:14

For individual aileron servos on this, I'd use Towerpro MG90s. More than good enough for this application. Cheaper than Hitecs too.

I've never had any issues with Lipos. That is, the thing randomly blowing up. I've intentionally blown up too many to count.

Prosynth is good stuff. I've used it in all my engines with no hassle. Well, there is one exception. I ran some 20% Prosynth 2000 in a helicopter with an O.S. 50. Hyper. I took the head off when suddenly I couldn't turn the thing over. I was quite shocked to see that the top of the piston and the inside of the head were so badly corroded that I couldn't even dismantle it. I'd had no problems running it on 20% cool power before then. That being said, I'd used fuel from that same bottle in other (aeroplane) engines without any issues so I have no idea what happened. That was about four years ago. But I thought it might be worth mentioning.

I was flying a friend's Magnatilla doing formation touch 'n' goes with a WOT 6 (Homebrew 80" WOT 4 with a 26cc petrol engine)... He chopped my tail clean off and the poor maggie flopped down to the ground like a fish out of water.    

I'm getting an FPV setup at christmas. I'm going to get a Flyingwings V-Trainer. I had one a while back, and it was probably the best plane one could imagine: Cheap, well made, no matter how hard you crashed it it always bounced back without a scratch, and it is a pusher-you get a great view out the front.The deal on the new V2 one has a more powerful motor, and a better aerofoil. It doesn't have much space inside, but one could cut out a space in the front (the nose is just a huge block of foam) and fit everything in there, away from the esc, battery, motor etc... With a LOT of room to spare.  Sheldon Edited By Sheldon Holy on 03/10/2010 09:48:16

looks very nice!Great job on building too, i hope it flies well! Are you sure that is an Extra 260? The cowling is all wrong, just as you pointed out. Sheldon

Yes, Armstrong, the commander, would have had semi-manual control over the lem from several hundred feet until landing. The lem would be stabilised by computers but the direction etc... was controlled by the commander.

Hi, Got the kit, no plan on mine either. I see why it doesn't have one-all the parts are so accurately cut. I'll start a build blog this evening. It is a very nice kit, for sure. They are very intricate to build. Sheldon

40 quid (PA) for me, a junior, including BMFA. I think about £100 for a senior, not sure.But the joining fee is less than normal at a dismal £35, including things like a restraint etc... as well as BMFA membership. But the field, compared with many is actually very bad, in a valley, near a road, with a hill in front of us which causes very wierd pockets of air...  Sheldon

Another double post...Edited By Sheldon Holy on 16/05/2010 15:07:42

Oh, probably a bit late, but the hole on the control horn should be over the hinge line, you get a much less sloppy linkage.Nice build though!Sheldon

More piccies!I'm going to the toy shop to pick up the Jamara Pitts, looks like a nice model.Gonna overpower it with the 2814 from BRC. 300 watts, should have over a 2:1 thrust ratio... Sheldon

Wow, looks great! Nice job glassing there BTW. Good that you don't have to worry about denting the thing every time you look at it... Looks very good on the ground - you know when the u/c is positioned incorrectly - doesn't look right.   Sheldon

Mistakes - your third model and your doing a very neat job. Dammit.Looks like a nice model though. Before everything is together, get some Solarfilm Clearcoat fuel proof varnish, paint that ply on the front with it, in the tank bay, and on the firewall glued to the model. Theese may be already varnished/painted, but the stuff that is already on there is about as much use as what appears from the south end of a north-facing cow.  Sheldon

Good to hear that it flies! I had the same thing on my SC (same as yours) .70fs. Different size, but the factory settings obviously wern't quite right so leaning it out about 1 turn on the low end fixed any problems. It is the best running engine i have ever had and the only time i have had deadstick is when i've run it out of fuel... Sheldon

Posted by Phil Wood on 02/05/2010 11:29:02: I can imagine some little official at the base of that rocket with a noise meter.  Pol.  I wonder what Health and Safety would have said about that...  

Posted by John Horsfield on 01/05/2010 23:51:35: If the apollo moon landing were faked, please can someone explain who left some dirty great mirrors up there for the Lunar Laser-ranging Operation at the time of the first moon landing? This is the one thing that conspiracy theorists always seem to conveniently forget about... Edited By John Horsfield on 01/05/2010 23:53:10  I still think it was the Clangers...

Posted by spanner on 01/05/2010 11:32:56: Of course its all FAKED!! The moon as any child will tell you, is made of cheese........ That's one small step for man, one giant blow for the cheese industry!

That darn film Capricorn One.Problem is, someone has come along, got this going, and made up silly excuses to go along with it. And if hey were faking such a big thing, why be so careless and have wind on the set?  I refer to the fact that the flag was 'waving'. People who use this idea don't understand that in a Vacuum, there is no air resistance so the flag will move more easily. The Lunar gravity is one-sixth of that of Earth's, so again it will move more easily. And there will be more jerky movements, causing it to swing more due to the stiff pressurized suits. Was the whole space program faked? did Mercury or Gemini never take place? What about the Apollo missions that didn't land on the moon? Apollo 7, 8 (which was the first manned mission to orbit the moon) Apollo 9 (an Earth orbit mission), or Apollo 10 (a dress rehersal of the first moon landing)? And it was, of course, to show the USA's superiority of the Soviets, so why fake 2 faliures too? Gemini 9, i think, had to re-enter early due to a stuck thruster. And of course, Apollo 13. So why, when showing that you are better than someone, fake a faliure?Doesn't add up does it. What's more, all the hundreds of set designers, stage hands, directors etc... Surely one of them will have said something. I've found a couple of good pictures and videos here:  Apollo 17 launch - Sunrise at midnight.  Apollo 16 - a boulder that is 4 stories high and over twice as long...!  You'll find you need to turn the sound right up on this one: That is a video of the Launch of one of the apollo missions, i think 11, from a film 'In the shadow of the Moon'. I've got the DVD, great film. More a documentary i guess, it has interviews with many of the astronauts.  And another, Jack Shmitt and Gene Cernan going a bit mad on the Moon... Sheldon  Edited By Sheldon Holy on 01/05/2010 08:20:00

Personally i think YES!Some tabloid newspaper has come along and mase up a headline of 'Moon Landings Faked' on day, to make a bit of money.To be honest, all the reasons for it being faked are a bit stupid. Kind of an amazing thought to travel 250,000 miles through space and be able to hide the Earth behind your thumb. It's a very interesting subject. They found rocks that are over 4.5 billion years old, 'only' a few hundred million years after the Solar System was formed. The Saturn V booster that got them up into Earth orbit had over 7.5 million pounds of thrust (3000 tonnes!)  and burned over 15 tonnes of fuel a second!!! What are everyones thoughts on the then? Sheldon

Very nice! I've heared thet you need to keep the speed up a little on landing and try to gently kick the tail around on the turn to final wpproach to avoid a nasty tip-stall...The date that the original full size prototype first flew on the 19th May (my birthday) 1969 (year of Apollo 11(first moon landing)) at Shoreham Airport... Where my dad's full size plane is based and is just a 20 minute drive from me!Enough of that, this looks like a nice model! I hope it flies very well too. I hear it's very smooth in the air, very stable.  Sheldon

If this flies anywhere near as nice as the Miss America version - it'll be brilliant! I flew one on Sunday, with an RCV .91 in it. It weighs nothing so it does actually fly like a Wot 4.I'm liking the look of this one though.