Erfolg Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 You are correct Davey, I was making a reference to SC. As a topic, it is of a passing interest, a "all our yesterdays" subject. A free plan is similar, OK once every so often, like once a year. In the case of the Cassuts, it is typical of the model type that is flown by many club, sports fliers. As a build, it is pretty much at the novice, beginners level of complexity, as designed by Peter. A model in the +50" span, appeals to me as a ageing electric flier. Although I do still fly small models, having joined a power club, where the safety ethos, is far more restrictive than my previous electric/glider club, where closer in, restricted circuit lengths were the norm for small fast models. In this new environment, big circuits, with the near part of the circuit being +30 feet, small is more difficult. Also a larger model would allow Peter to incorporate side cheeks that are scale, and other refinements that he sees as beneficial and take his fancy. The other issue is that in this general size, both IC and electric are very attractive, neither demanding anything exotic, just the sort of equipment available from any LMS,. That is both propulsive and control. As with the present design, I would bet on it being a belter. In the case of the Bellanca, I expect that much of the issues revolved around three IC engines. In the case of electric propulsion, there are a number of advantages that could make things easier. The outer two motors could be arranged to rotate opposite to each other. The central motor could be a low powered unit, if asymmetric thrust was thought to be an issue. The reliability of electric motors generally avoids the issue of a motor going out( particularly when climbing out). Being electric some of the weight necessary with three ic motors can be stripped out, potentially lowing the wing loading, improving performance. The case for the QED is that it embodies a lot of the attractive features of "Golden Age" of air racing, without the extremes of many aircraft from that era. You can still see the "Z" and "R1/2" features, without the extremes associated with these models. The aircraft has a generous wing area, a good moment arm and tail plane area. Further more, it is in many ways similar in concept to some of Peters earlier designs, I think Miss Lissie and I think there was one called Goldie, which could be good design references? It is good to read that Peter is now feeling better, although I was unaware of any issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 The Bellancacame outvery heavy inspite of my offorts (or perhaps because of them. I have a nice little twin which satisfies my needs in that line. I did a few quick calculations on the Miss Demeanor plan. Scaled up as a straight enlargement to to 50" would give a wing area of well over 600 sq. inches which means that it would be nice for a 40 to 52 four stroke so when I finish the current project it will be a likely contender for the next one. I do like it and have several Cassutt 3 views. With regards to the QED. I have Henry Haffke's book on the Gee Bees (Signed but not to me) and I cannot find a single mention of the QED in the book. Strange, that!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Peter, I do not know if you have "A legacy of speed, The Gee Bee Racers" by Charles A Mendenhall? It is in there. A link to a bit about the airplane. It is the plan view which confirms it pretty standard proportions. Particularly when compared to a Gee Bee Z or R1/2. A link to a copy. Edited By Erfolg on 15/05/2017 15:56:43 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 have mendenhall's book of 3 views. The QED might, I stress "might" be on my possibles list somethime but not yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 I have to agree with Erfolg - we need modern plans in RCME not reissued single channel plans! So we need more new designs from Peter. Surely the country's most prolific designer should design at least 1 plan specially for brushless motor & Lipo.............. Erfolg mentioned Goldie - that is a design by Mike Keay in RCMW plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave from the future Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Looking at the Wikipedia page for the QED I see that a Pete Miller is credited as one of the designers! The QED 2 replica is a beautiful looking plane, even better than the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Although apparently nearing his 80 the birthday, it is not quite old enough to have been the designer. Or has he been reincarnated, as yet another brilliant designer, for being a good boy? The model I am thinking of is a bit of a barrel, like a Gee Bee, is that Goldie? Peters Cassut was designed for ic, in that it was strong enough to take the vibration of the engine. It was easy enough to loose a little weight. Although in reality, loosing weight from the front end, often requires lead to replace the wood. I will take a *1.5 Cassut for ic, and just mod for a electric motor, its no big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin b Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Posted by kc on 15/05/2017 19:23:37: I have to agree with Erfolg - we need modern plans in RCME not reissued single channel plans! So we need more new designs from Peter. Surely the country's most prolific designer should design at least 1 plan specially for brushless motor & Lipo.............. Erfolg mentioned Goldie - that is a design by Mike Keay in RCMW plans. Sorry KC, but how many FREE plans do you want to see in each months magazine ? As far as I can see, we seem to be getting one old plan and one new design each month and long may it continue. Personally I like to see old traditional plans given an airing, even if the content isn't to my particular liking. At least the newer modellers (few that they are) are getting to see more plans and are being encouraged to build from them. I actually wouldn't mind betting that there are more of the old designs built from the magazine than the new ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Kevin For me it is quality, rather than quantity. Then there is the issue as to how many (free plans) get built. My experience indicates a lot of the small models such as the Cando, and the Cutlas, not seen any of the old SC models. Possibly as numerous are the designs of both PM and TH. Who builds these models, mainly established modellers. New comers to the hobby, invariably have a RTF or ARTF model. There is a very definite trend with electric models that are built, that is they are now typically bigger than a few years back. I believe this is a consequence of electric power trains and particularly Lipos at the higher capabilities, being more numerous and relatively low cost. Plus the issue that PM high lights, they can be seen. It can also be argued that the wind speed capability is larger. For myself, i really do want to see another PM scale model in the mag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 Er, First. Peter Miller is a disgustingly common name Even the farmer who owns the fields all round my house is called Peter Miller.! As far as designing models for electric power. I haven't got a clue about motors, batteries and engine speed controllers. and designing models of the size that I like would mean a fairly large investment in motors and batteries. Anyway. Most of my larger models are pretty light in terms of wing loaoding anyway. I believe that quite a few Ballerinas where electrifieds. One of my scale models was in RCMW a couple of months ago, the RWD5 but putting that on a full size plan might be tricky. IT would electrify very easily though. Once I have built the current project which will be for the other side I will look at a scale model suitable for aerobatics and 40 plus size four strokes and will keep it light as I always like to do. However I have to want to build and fly what I am designing or it isn't fun. The interest is vital or it soesn't work. One of my mottos is "There is no substitugte for low wing loading." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hayward. Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Hi Peter I am building your Fokker D VIII design. The plan shows two dihedral braces for the wing both identical and both absolutely straight. There is no reference to lifting the wingtips at all on the plan when joining the outer sections to the middle section. However your notes in the magazine article state the end of the outer sections should be life by 5/16 which would surely require a slight v shaped dihedral brace rather than a straight one? Bit confused, please advise. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hayward. Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Sorry Percy, I don't understand this. The outer sections of the wing are built separately from the inner section and then joined. So if the end of the outer section is lifted 5/16 then there will be a v at the top and bottom of the wing join. Odd that no mention of lifting the outer sections when joining to the centre section is made on the plan and that both dihedral braces, top and bottom, are shown absolutely flat on the plan. Edited By David Hayward. on 07/06/2017 22:20:10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 As Percy says, the topn of the wing will be perfectly flat. I can't remember how long the dihedral braces are and I don't think I still have the orginal plan but I think that the lower dihedral brace will only need a tiny chamfer to allow for the very slight angle of the lower surface. Sometimes I can forget to add to the annotation on a plan and sometimes they get left off on th final drawing. Not sure which it it is in this case although I was probably looking at my own drwing as I wrote the text. There is a thread on building this model here I am sure that soeone will have sorted the dihedral brace problem out. \Sorry if I am so vague, it was over four years ago and quite a lot of designs ago. I sometimes see a model and don't even recognise it and then see that it was one of my designs. Senility galloping in I am afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hayward. Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Thanks Guys, it must be me, but here is a drawing of what I perceive to be the issue. Where the centre and outer sections join a V shape will be formed if the tip of the outer section is lifted by 5/16. The dihedral braces are 3 7/8 long Straight dihedral braces would not appear to be suitable for this arrangement. Checking out the building thread, from the images Russ has posted, the wing appears perfectly flat - no dihedral. Still confused. any problem building the wing with no dihedral as per plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 I can say that the top surface should be flat. I know that mine was. The 5/16ths should be the difference in thickness between to root rib and the tip rib. I am pretty certain that I do not have my original plan but will have a look later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hayward. Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Thanks Peter, just trying to get it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOMAS CUMMINGS Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Greetings Peter, How would one go about obtaining a copy of plans for "Harmony"? Best Regards, Thomas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David McCulloch Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 Peter love the planes you create but in my old age have gone electric, I note that the destiny in RMC&E quotes both ic and electric but I really need a plan that shows how to build the electric option. Would also like to see one of your planes specifically designed for electric. David McCulloch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin b Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Thomas. Harmony RCM&E June 2010. You should be able to get a copy here **LINK** Failing that pm me with your email address. Kevinb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 The Harmony plan and all RCME, Radio Modeller, Traplet etc plans should be now be available from Sarik Hobbies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Hi Thomas. If you can't get a copy from Sarik Hobbies I can get a pdf file done from my own copy of the full size plan. I do not design for electric power, at least not since speed 600 motors became obsolete. I believe that one por two people may be may be doing electric powered Destinys. I have sent Gary Vinten copies of a future plan Peggy Sue 2 so they can do an electric conversion article. buit that is a long way in the future. The day that electric motors come with an IC conversion figure and propeller sizes I might consider designing specifically for electric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOMAS CUMMINGS Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Posted by kevin b on 13/10/2017 17:44:29: Thomas. Harmony RCM&E June 2010. You should be able to get a copy here **LINK** Failing that pm me with your email address. Kevinb Thanks much Kevin I bought the mag and plan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOMAS CUMMINGS Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Posted by kc on 13/10/2017 18:01:19: The Harmony plan and all RCME, Radio Modeller, Traplet etc plans should be now be available from Sarik Hobbies Thanks for the link but I am unable to find the plans section of their website! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOMAS CUMMINGS Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Well Peter, if you dislike electrics, you are really going to dislike my plans to build "Harmony"! Wing area 1440 sq in. Weight 15-16 pounds E-flite Power 160 245kv Two 5s 5000mah lipos 18x10 prop 2700 watts Thomas 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.