Erfolg Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Have I missed PM's Vans RV3? How could that be? Or is it to come? It has to be a really practical, from a modelling perspective and good looking light aircraft! Erfolg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 IT is next but one in the line. I only posted the plans in last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Cardona Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 how about a nice dalotel peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ashby - Moderator Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Peter's RV-3 is due to be published with the Nov issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 I have thought about a Dalotel but don't hold your breath. I have three other projects before I can even think of it. I do have 3 views ready to go when and if.Edited By Peter Miller on 21/09/2010 18:20:44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 There was a 48 inch Dalotel by David Boddington in RCSQ Summer 1988. Probably still in the plans service if you cannot wait for Peter to design one.There was glass fibre cowl avail at the time. Only 1 scale colour scheme available though....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 Peters Vans RV3 has already got into the Plans Service as RC 2078. The write up says it weighs 5 pound 14 ounces and is only 47.5 inch span. Wing loading of 26.5 oz sq ft. Can it really be nearly 6 pounds at this span?Is there a sudden famine of good balsa in South Suffolk or is it a lot chunkier than it looks? Edited By kc on 15/10/2010 17:17:23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted October 15, 2010 Author Share Posted October 15, 2010 Must be a misprint. Great Planes did a RV 4 park flyer for electric, I imagine that PM's RV 3 would not be a million miles in difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 The wing loading is about 24 ounces per sq ft. IT has a wide chord. I did wonder when I saw the wingloading figure but no problem The wings are all sheet covered. IT has flaps and the fuselage is pretty bulky. Don't worry, it flies really well and is very forgiving. The stall is a non-event. The glide is excellent as proved in the early tests because there was a problem with the fuel feed. There are some pictures of the full size on the RV3 album.Edited By Peter Miller on 15/10/2010 18:14:28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 I think we all accept that if Peter says it flies well then it does. However his other designs at about 48 inch came in a bit lighter and I was hoping the RV3 would make a good electric model for low power. compare it to other PM designs....... 47.5 inch Vans RV3 510 sq in 5lb14 oz 48 inch Midget Mustang 475 sq in 4lb 12oz48 inch Lil Mustang 468sq in 4lb 0oz52 inch Werewolf 520 sq in 4lb 5 oz 53inch CAP21 477sq in 4lb 3oz56inch Bootlace 510sq in 5lb 0oz51 inch Miss Lizzy 490sq in 4lb 1 oz Maybe its unfair to compare scale with sports models. But its a good comparison because they were all built by the same man ( or did Peter sub contract some? ) So perhaps I will build a Lil Mustang instead of an RV3 with a white colour scheme. ( saves being called white Van man too! ) Edited By kc on 15/10/2010 19:26:19Edited By kc on 15/10/2010 19:32:13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted October 15, 2010 Share Posted October 15, 2010 I just weighed the model again. Dead on 5 lbs 15 ounces, Wing area 517 sq. inches. Taking your other examples. Apart from the Midget Mustang they are all very much slimmed down and stretched designs with much lower wing loadings. The Midget Mustang was much nearer to scale while the RV3 is as close to scale as possible. Bear in mind that it is 1/5th scale and the fuselage is almost 5" and over 6 deep and the wings are full sheet covered although that should only add a couple of ounces As I said, it flies really well and does most aerobatics but don't expect it to perform like the others because they are sports aerobatic models and this one is scale so it is not as crisp or or sharp. The Midget Mustang also flew like the RV3 and could have done with a .52 four stroke. I did subcontract about four models out about 14 to 10 years ago but since one person took three years to build one of them in spite of being provided with all the materials I have said NEVER AGAIN. Edited By Peter Miller on 15/10/2010 19:41:29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted October 15, 2010 Author Share Posted October 15, 2010 KC If like me you are going electric, take the PM design and lighten it. PM has indicated that it is intended for IC, so needs to be more robust particularly around the engine. I have built the PM Casutts for electric, which is lighter than the original, although not flown. I have built a similarly sized Nobler, with essentially the same size/loading, although only flown once, flies really well. I suspect we will need to become weight watchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Peter, thanks for the info. As usual a really informative answer. Did the RV 3 need any lead?As all the models I mentioned were within 5 to 10 percent of each other in terms of wingspan and area I thought it made an interesting comparison considering they were all built by the same person and mostly covered in Supershrink Solarfilm. Someone in my club has built a Miss Lizzy for electric and it seems a great model. I just wanted to make something different to him! It would seem the RV3 is a bit too heavy & chunky for the low power electric I had in mind. ( I want to use 2200Mah lipos ) ( at least I got the Caucasian male vehicle driver quip in before anyone else! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 I think I had to add a little lead in the tail. Sorry. I have designed and built another two models since then plus another two plans drawn up and another started. I lose track of what has gone before. While there is plenty of room in the model There seems to be little sccope for lightening it. As you know, I don't build models any heavier than I have to. I can't comment on electric power. If it doesn't make a noise and belch out oil and smoke I don't know anything about it. And before anyone asks. A Fun Fly, a Wittman V-Witt racer both built flown and coming out., a Fournier RF-7, A Mauboussin M40 Hemiptere and an experimental model that will be interesting for the gadgetry.Edited By Peter Miller on 16/10/2010 13:54:49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Hedges Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Looks like a cool little model. My father came up a couple of weeks ago and "borrowed" my Harmony plans so I now have some wood waiting for something to build... might have a go at this. Anyone fancy trying this as a spray job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajreynolds Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 So, has anyone started on this one yet? I'm still waiting for the issue to arrive here in the US. I'm particularly interested in the electric conversions that have been mentioned. Any suggestions on changes made to lighten up would be appreciated. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Well, you could save a bit by covering the wings with film behind the D box rather than all sheet covering. Engine mounting box could be lightened and use 1/8 ply for F-1. Use much lighter wood to tail parts. Not using flaps might save an ounce or two but would be a shame as they really work well. Possibly an electric motor would be lighter than a .52 four stroke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hooper Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Posted by Peter Miller on 10/11/2010 08:14:12: Possibly an electric motor would be lighter than a .52 four stroke. Now go and wash your keyboard off with soapy water........ tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Unfortunately we are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of race, creed, intelligence, sex or any other strange differences or the thought police will come and lobotomise us. For this reason I merely suggested that an electric motor might be lighter. Of course to provide the equivalent power it may be three times as heavy. I wouldn't know and have no intention of finding out. Edited By Peter Miller on 10/11/2010 18:19:41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajreynolds Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 No worries, those of us who have been enlightened won't hold it against the old slimers set in their ways. Thanks for the tips by the way. I look forward to seeing the plans in about a month. The "Special" issue with the Spitfire plans has just arrived here in the States. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted November 11, 2010 Share Posted November 11, 2010 Luckily I can forgive a lot, including insults, to people who actually build models, especially if they build my designs. I don't forgive people who only fly ARTFS 'cos they aren't modellers Oh dear! I suppose that is discrimination too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Garrett Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I'm just about to start building but have one question before I do. The plan shows no engine side or down thrust. Is this correct or should I build some in? I'm planning on using my existing Saito FA-62 which (just about) fits in the cowl. I'm sure it's a little heavier than the 52 recommended but Hey Ho, it's sitting in the workshop looking for a home! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Hi Martyn, started buiding also, tho very slowly. No engine thrust is required on the build, think in top right hand corner of one side of the plan gives this.Lots of pics if you can martyn, gives me a helping hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Garrett Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Nope can't see any mention on the plan at all! Will try to post a few pics when I can. What wire should I use for binding the undercarriage to F1. On previous models I've used polyester thread and epoxy rather than wire and solder, which seems to have worked OK so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Ooops sorry Martyn its on pg 71 of RCM&E mag. As to the wire, not sure myself, was thinking of using the fuse wire you can buy. Hopefully someone will suggest summit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.