The 2010 Special Issue

[Daniel Meurer]

Dear administrator: it seems that the special issue has found its way as far as Malta, but not  down to Majorca, me and at least one other subscriber are still waiting for it.  Any problem with mail service in UK ? Thanks for info.

[TonyS]

hi Chaps, is it me - I can see this but I can't see the digital edition of the Anniversary Edition. is this because it isn't free online to subscribers? Also, is it possible to check online whether my subscription is still live? Thanks T

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by Chris Channon on 29/09/2010 17:47:34:

Hi all,

yep another good read but, where are the actual building photo's of the trad built aeroplanes? lots of finished pictures but not one of the actual build.

 

Re the Tim glow to electric conversion, where does the 1056 in the maths come from?

Ie 1056 -7 x 40 =6034 rpm?

So where does the 1056 ( in inches ) come from?

That is a very large prop for a model aeroplane !!!!

 

Has the paper quality changed ? it feels a lot " cheaper and thinner" ) than we are used too.

 

Wow, this seems like a lot of negative feedback, not meant like that at all, just a few points that i noticed.

 

Regards as always

Chris.

 

Chris - the 1056 is nothing to do with the diameter of the prop - prop diameter has no effect on pitch speed. The maths are as follows  - and it was completely unnecessary to illustrate this in the scope of the article.....I already felt I was going a bit too techy after all its only about sticking a leccy motor in a model .

 

1 MPH is 5280 feet per hour, or,  88' per minute.

1 MPH is therefore 1056 inches per minute ( 88' X 12 ).

Therefore, RPM  X  Pitch ( in inches )  / 1056  = pitch speed in MPH.

A simple mixing of these figures gives the calculation I used below to guesstimate the required RPM for required pitch speed on a given prop.

 

1056 / pitch (inches) X pitch (speed ) = RPM 

 

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by TonyS on 29/09/2010 22:23:41:
hi Chaps, is it me - I can see this but I can't see the digital edition of the Anniversary Edition. is this because it isn't free online to subscribers? Also, is it possible to check online whether my subscription is still live? Thanks T

 

Just checked your account Tony and all seems OK -  logged in as you and I accessed the digi edition just fine

[TonyS]

Thanks Tim, Operator error as usual! I'll try again. T

[TonyS]

Nope! As before, can see the 2010 Special but not the 50th Anniversary Edition. Is it with the other back issues? Tony

[Tim Mackey]

Ah sorry, my bad as they say - I thought you were after the autumn special.

Logging you out now mate for a few minutes for another look. Hang on.

[Tim Mackey]

I'm afraid the anniversary special is not in the archives Tony - this was one off special which had limited distribution, and was NOT included as part of the subscribers package.

Subscribers get the twelve normal monthly editions PLUS one  "autumn special" as part of their subs.

[TonyS]

Thanks again Tim, I suspected as much. I'll need to make sure I detour past a newsagents tomorrow then. T

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by Daniel Meurer on 29/09/2010 19:05:36:

Dear administrator: it seems that the special issue has found its way as far as Malta, but not  down to Majorca, me and at least one other subscriber are still waiting for it.  Any problem with mail service in UK ? Thanks for info.

Give it a few more days Daniel but drop me a PM on Mon with your address and subsciber no (if you know it) if nothing received.

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 30/09/2010 04:56:25

[Tom Foreman]

Enjoyed the magazine and am going to start digesting Andy's excellent article on setting up my F3F, hopefully I'll get it to roll faster

 

The only critiscm I have is that the A123 article, although very well done and informative is about 3 years late. Things have moved on in the LiPo world but there have been no technology improvements in A123's I still use mine but find my newer tech Lipos charge as fast and give out a lot more power and hold there voltage much better compared to the A123's.

 

Thanks for a great mag

 

Tom

[Nick Rigg]

A good read, with plenty of interest for me and only a few articles I glossed over. The Electric conversion piece by Timbo was really good but I was left somewhat bemused by the article on LifePos as I wasn't quite sure whether Tim was for or against...too many drawbacks as far as I can see.

I agree with a comment above that there are too many pictures of finished models and not enough showing the work in progress. I think more detail pictures would greatly benefit the articles in RCM&E on a regular basis.

[Tim Hooper]

Posted by Chris Channon on 29/09/2010 17:47:34:

Hi all,

yep another good read but, where are the actual building photo's of the trad built aeroplanes? lots of finished pictures but not one of the actual build.

 Chris,

 

This point has to be one of my few gripes about the magazine in general.

 

Now I know from experience that the mag expects a high standard of photography from its contributors, and I also know that pictures taken in the workshop of a semi-built wing lying in a sea of sawdust and handtools may not be aesthetically pleasing, but this sort of shot is probably worth a thousand words to the average modeller.  Perhaps a case of form overcoming function?

 

There's not a single in-build shot in either the Spitfire or Gee Bee articles - both models that are purpose-designed to appeal to the trad builder who would would relish shots of the naked airframes - even if not photographically perfect. 

 

Now, Nige Hawes has got it right.  He uses a sheet of artists mountboard as a backdrop to his construction photos, and these get published without a problem.  This is fine for a small model, but not really feasible for a large one so maybe some sort of compromise could be reached?.

 

 

Other than that I have to add that I really enjoyed Dave Roberts beautifully sympathic areticle on the astonishing works of Guy Black.  Marvellous stuff, and a welcome change in direction for a modelling magazine.  Well done!

 

tim

[Erfolg]

Tim

 

Regarding Photography, I have attempted to tease David, regarding photographic standards and composition. The quality of the photos on the front covers and within the magazine is always superb, yet for me often a little lacking, in emotion, content etc.

 

The reference you make to a "picture being worth more than a thousand words" is so true.

 

Another aspect is ordinary workshop and home shots, can act as encouragement, this model is built by an ordinary guy, in an ordinary workshop.

 

I suspect that the two Ashby's are not disposed to photo retouching. Which many parts of industry embrace as the norm. Blanking out unwanted background, averaging the back drop and all the other things that one of the son-in-laws does as basic art. Lets just "get it right first time" being thier approach. 

 

I guess it is a matter of philosophy. The old Aeromodellers, were far from perfect (although may be that was the best that could be done in the 50/60's.

 

The Ashby's clearly set very high standards for themselves and possibly others, yet a slight change of emphasis, may add a little more. On reflection they achieve far more than I could ever do 

[Chris Channon]

Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 29/09/2010 23:05:04:

Posted by Chris Channon on 29/09/2010 17:47:34:

 

 

Chris - the 1056 is nothing to do with the diameter of the prop - prop diameter has no effect on pitch speed. The maths are as follows  - and it was completely unnecessary to illustrate this in the scope of the article.....I already felt I was going a bit too techy after all its only about sticking a leccy motor in a model .

 

1 MPH is 5280 feet per hour, or,  88' per minute.

1 MPH is therefore 1056 inches per minute ( 88' X 12 ).

Therefore, RPM  X  Pitch ( in inches )  / 1056  = pitch speed in MPH.

A simple mixing of these figures gives the calculation I used below to guesstimate the required RPM for required pitch speed on a given prop.

 

1056 / pitch (inches) X pitch (speed ) = RPM 

 

 Hi, thank you for the reply, if it only took two lines to tell me about the 1056, why was it not in the article?

It was a very good Teccy article, but i feel this bit should have been included, on it's own 1056 x this and that means nothing.

 

Why is it that if we have a genuine feedback issue it is always met with a " throwaway" comment that makes me wish i had not bothered?

 

It would be nice sometimes to get a " Blimey, i could have done that" reply, rather than being spoken to like a lower life form because a negative might have upset the Ego of someone who knows everything ..

 

Regards

Chris.

 

[Tim Mackey]

Chris - I do hope you are not inferring that my response to your question was a "throwaway" comment.  123 words is hardly a throwaway is it ?

I did explain that it was not included in the article as I felt the technical stuff was already in danger of clouding the simple stuff - I even finished with a winkie icon to keep things light hearted.

I really dont see the necessity for your upset - and as for being spoken to like a low life - now thats just incorrect.

Incidentally, ask any mag contributor and they will tell you the same thing.... many things which the author includes in his original text are edited out by the time it gets to print - space and the editors final word take precedence over wordy documents I assure you.

Regards.

Edited By Tim Mackey - Administrator on 01/10/2010 19:22:07

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by Nick Rigg on 30/09/2010 13:37:17:

A good read, with plenty of interest for me and only a few articles I glossed over. The Electric conversion piece by Timbo was really good but I was left somewhat bemused by the article on LifePos as I wasn't quite sure whether Tim was for or against...too many drawbacks as far as I can see.

I agree with a comment above that there are too many pictures of finished models and not enough showing the work in progress. I think more detail pictures would greatly benefit the articles in RCM&E on a regular basis.

 

Hi Nick - I tried to illustrate all the relevant points about the A123s - good and bad.

If I were to leave out the negatives, sure as eggs is eggs someone would complain that I was biased towards them.

Simply listing whats wrong with them would have the opposite result of course

I use them in certain models, and as I think the article explained, they are probably best suited to larger models - not sure that there are "too many drawbacks" - simply horses for courses.... and its up the end user to decide if they are right for them.

Edited By Tim Mackey - Administrator on 01/10/2010 22:43:38

[flytilbroke]

Read it over the weekend.  Best RCM&E I have seen.