Flair Junior 60 build

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Ross Burgess]

Thanks Cymaz and Percy,

Yes, I fully appreciate that these ailerons will probably hinder turns more than help them.

I can dial them out altogether if needed - I will have about a 70% mix with rudder to begin with - so, the rudder will more than likely do all the work from the right Tx stick anyway.

If it tends to go askew because of the ailerons, I'll dial them out.

They will still come in to set deflection with down elevator mixed when the two position landing flap toggle is used.

That also might be up for ditching.... I believe it will give the wing far too much lift and cause it to balloon.

I have programmed a 12 second delay into the set deflection - this is in unison with down elevator - so, with luck on my side - I should have plenty of time to see if ditching the concept and just letting it float in as normal.

As for tank - the 6 oz's probably won't ever be consumed - but it's a bit more weight where needed - and, if I do decide to stay up for an extended period - the 1450 LiFe battery should afford enough combined flight time for a safe 30 minute flight.

I have set up the tank in full view through the cabin window - along with the "error" light on the Rx, if contact is lost.

I will try to track down some acetate sheet... it's probably worthy of purchasing a new shirt (hatches, matches and dispatches only) just for the sheet as the lid of the box.

I do use Canopy glue - lucked onto it through my slot car interests... used for fitting vac formed canopies into scratchbuilt GP and F1 cars.... it's darned good stuff - beats PVA glue hands down.

Ok - spent all of today masking up the wing and fuse with it's scallops... very much similar to the model above.

All being well, this bird should at least have a couple of engine runs within the fortnight.

Thanks again for your help and comments.... looking forward to many more as they come to mind.

frats,

Rosco

[Ross Burgess]

Ok folk,

masking tape off..... yippee!

Lines are a lot sharper than they look in the following pix... shrinking them down to a small file size has pixelated them.

The only one I'll have to address is the line under the cabin... it has "bled" a bit.

Thanks for posting your Jnr 60 livery up above, Ken  - I have very much stolen most of it - I do hope you approve of my effort.

 

pix..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

frats,

Rosco

Edited By Ross Burgess on 17/01/2016 05:00:25

Edited By Ross Burgess on 17/01/2016 05:03:04

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ken anderson.]

very nice rosco.....i probably pinched my scheme from someone else's....it looks very nice....i still have my doubts about the ailerons.....i dont think they will work with all the dihedral the wing has....so i would remove them....once in the sky the JNR'S need very little input to do circuits etc.......and only require a lot when taking off/landing...to peg into the wind...direction....

ken anderson...ne....1 wind dept.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Ross Burgess]

Thanks, Percy - no, the ailerons will drop like flaps - and the elevator will compensate with down ele.

I haven't weighed it yet.. it might not be as bad as I am eluding... until I get it on the scales, I really have no idea whether it's 2 kg's or 3 kg's.

The wing area and under camber will certainly give it lift... it should be able to handle that sort of weight.

If it's 4 kg's or more.. then I'll need to fly it like a ballistic missile with enough grunt up front to pull it.....hence the recent purchase of the FA56.

As for shirt box - yes, absolutely correct..... no good for front window - might be ok for the sides.

I am now thinking of heat forming a front windscreen using a gentle heat gun and a soft drink bottle .. they can be formed over a solid shape and will shrink down very well to it... I should be able to sand a piece of wood to shape and then heat shrink the bottle plastic over it.. smoothing and cooling it out with a wet rag once formed.

People's thoughts?

frats,

Rosco

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cabbage Man]

Mine weighs 9 lb and flies on about 400w of power. I used to have one that flew on a 70fs and that was great for windier days. The rest of the time, it flew at tick over. Ive ballasted it to 12 llbs and it flew the same. Ive seen one at about 20llbs with camera gear and that flew…. exactly the same.

The ailerons won't work well given the dihedral , thats been tried and tested sadly. Sorry!!

I replaced the windscreen with thin ply to prevent damage to it from my clumsy fingers...

[Ross Burgess]

Percy, I go into most things I do like this - leopards and spots stuff...never change them, even if I tried.

I will cut out the screen from the plan and follow your instructions - they seem to have simplified the process of getting it to follow the frame and firewall shape - thanks.

As for over-powering the model - no, it's not my intention... the only way I'll commit to fitting a larger motor is if I can't get a satisfactory lift off and climb out with the restrictions around the field where I fly.

We have a long strip, but there are issues at both ends with a gun club at one end and a river at the other.

EG - your figures ease my mind with the weight of what I believe my model might come out at.

With your 9 lbs, that equates to the 4 kg's I mentioned up above somewhere - I am really hoping that I come in below this.

As for the ailerons - yes, they were a "rush of blood" incorporation. Originally, I intended to reduce dihedral - then when I was fitting the two wing halves to the reduced brace, the model lost all period character - and I changed back to the full dihedral... far too late in the wing build to do away with the ailerons... then up came plan B to use them as flaperons...

The amount of mix I'll put in with rudder will probably see these totally unused except as flaps when switched in for landing.

This switch is two position... and - if they are not suitable for use as flaps - I'll simply lock them in place and removed the servo's and fill the servo bays....

That's as far as I have thought this out so far...

Oh - one more addition tonight, I have marked out a free hand style (period) "Junior 60" on the right hand wing panel... I'll snap a pic when I hand paint it in the red/brown trim colour.

It gives the model a much more appeasing and period look....

50 years old already - posted above... this will be the "oldest, newest" model on the block...

I'm hoping that chrome plated brass spinner will turn up this week (excuse pun).. it weighs 3 oz's.. and might just get my c of g with the rearward wing mount right under the edge of the wing sheeting/spar.... this is where I believe the c of g needs to be - I am aiming about 1" further back on the fuse than marked on the plan... this equates to the 1" further back wing position..

Thanks again, folk - please keep comments coming... as i will continue to post on progress.

frats,

Rosco

[Ross Burgess]

Ok folk,

finally plucked up the courage to do some weighing.... details -

 

Wing including servos 508

FA30 motor with 11 x 5 prop 388

3 oz chrome plated brass spinner 86

1,450 LiFe battery 82

Tank minus fittings 14

2 main servos 112

Aileron leads, switch harness 8

Engine mounting plates, servo screws 10

Fuselage with rods, radio receivers, undercarriage

Wheels, painted 856

 

2064 gramms

2.064 g = 72.67 ozs = 4.54 lbs

So, now armed with this info - what is your opinion on the weight of my model for this little early Saito 30?

I have yet to add the nose block, fuel tubing/lines and windows - but I believe the above is pretty much it... not forgetting the amount of lead I'll have to add to get the c of g at the where the wing chord will be.

Last night, hand drew out the wing panel name.. hand painted it this morning.. bit rough - but I'll probably live with it...

pic..

 

frats,

Rosco

Edited By Ross Burgess on 18/01/2016 01:40:01

Edited By Ross Burgess on 18/01/2016 01:45:19

Edited By Ross Burgess on 18/01/2016 01:47:51

[Cabbage Man]

Just realisedI was talking about my 1.5 x junior 60, the majestic major.

4.5 llbs is fine overall but the 30fs wont fly it well. My first j60 was using a sc30fs and it never took off.

A replacement OS 48 did the job .

Im going to suggest something around that size for decent flying.

[ken anderson.]

rosco-looks good.....mine was built in 1991......original engine was a OS 26/4st.....plenty power...latest engine fittedafter the 26 expired is an OS 30/4st....... still enough power...once off the JNR'S are horrible to fly on full power...they are practically uncontrollable.....so throttle back to high tick over is enough....

ken anderson...ne...1........ high power dept.

[David Davis]

Ross, I learned to fly on one of these. Mine weighed about 4.5 lbs. I fitted a variety of engines but my favourite was an HP VT 25 fourstroke.This engine dated from the 1970s. Your Saito will be fine.

[Ross Burgess]

Thanks David,

I panicked a bit and will be receiving a new Saito FA40 today.

The mounts for this motor are extremely close to that of the 1979 FA30 open rocker motor.

I will now maiden this model with the 40, and hopefully if it becomes obvious that the little 30 will manage - retro fit that engine for period.

As Ken mentioned above, the model should fly comfortably below 1/2 throttle - the large wing area and undercambered wing should allow it to fly gently. The huge dihedral should keep it stable.

I must repeat here, which I believe may have been overlooked - is that there is absolutely zip incidence in the wing/tailplane - zero.

If I am not wrong - this should allow a more controllable flight under power.

I have the standard built in down thrust as per plan. My offset is set at 2 1/2 degrees right.

David, I am very much comforted to learn that your model weighed 4 1/2 pounds... mine, with the slightly heavier motor up front, chrome plated brass spinner (3 oz.) and the difference of whatever lead you used and I will have to add - should result in my model coming in under 5 lbs.

I am in the process of replacing the 6 oz tank at present. I have ordered a new 6 oz and 4 oz tank.

The bung on the OK Models (Pilot kit, circa 1980) is useless... and finding a replacement of the same larger size from my LHS's resulted in failure. Seems, modern tanks use a smaller diameter bung.

I will more than likely use an 11 x 5 APC prop for this 40 ... the 30 will more than likely run a smaller 10 x 6.

Both these motors, being my first 4 strokes which I am about to use (I have six of them, and yet to run one) will run on my home brewed fuel.

I will mix up 18% oil at 13% synthetic and 5% castor. I will use 10% nitro methane.

The small amount of castor is to afford residual lubrication. I have employed this mix with an OS 45 FSR ABC which is some 30 plus years old - and has faithfully run without any maintenance save one Enya #3 plug.

I also use Dexron ATF as an after run and during storage.

I am now experimenting with Inox MX-3 (food grade) in a 50-50 mix with the Dexron. The MX-3 appears to have better penetrating ability - which will suit preventing the dreaded castor glugging up.

I have found MX-3 to be most suitable in leaving a very thin film on the electrical contact rails of my Scalextric slot car track - it is very difficult to remove entirely without employing some cleaning fluid (meths, etc).

thanks again, David - you words give me considerable comfort.

frats,

Rosco

[Denis Watkins]

Hi Ross

All the guys are giving you good sound advice.

Consider everything, even half size servos to keep the weight nearer 4lb though 4.5 lb maybe your limit.

Consider a lightweight homebuilt u/c, with fetherlite wheels, balsacabin do ideal wheels.

Your fe battery is heavy, get a low mah, about 1000mAh if you can, nihm battery.

Much lighter, And a 1000 will give you a days flying

The 10 x 6 is too course for the 30

Fit a 9 x 6 to unload its power, even a 9 x 5 will transform it

I will watch with interest

[David Davis]

Ross

What I ommitted to say in my last post was that once I had learned to fly I became over-confident. I was trying to roll the thing without ailerons and the starbord wing snapped off at the root. It was powered by an Irvine 21 car racing engine at the time. The model spiralled into the ground from perhaps 100 feet. Damage to the fuselage? Nothing. The model was built absolutely standard with no extra strengthening whatsoever. At that time it had 1.5 lbs of lead under the nose because I had used very hard balsa in building the tail.

I built a lighter tail and was able to remove all of the lead. In the end the model became a test bed for small engines. It flew adequately on an HP VT 21 fourstroke which is surely the least powerful engine in it's class. "Weight of a forty, power of a ten" they used to say, but it did struggle to take off with such a feeble engine.

Your 40 will certainly fly it and I don't think that the altered incidences will make much difference, but it but it is not a pattern ship and I used to like to fly mine around as slowly as possible in big figures of eight.

With your larger engine and increased weight you may not be able to do this.

[Engine Doctor]

Hello Ross . It should fly fine with the Saito depending on how much weight you need to get the CG correct. I had an old Junior sixty back in the eighties with a clapped out old OS 25 . I picked it up at a swap-meet for next t nothing The model itself was heavy and had an aluminium covered nose . Not Litho plate but proper 3 mm ali sheet beaten to shape and lead weights. It flew great even in windy weather but did need a long run for take off or a good throw . So provided you don't want loops and rolls it should be fine . At the other end of the weight scale I have flown very light Junior sixties and they get buffeted around more on windy days and are only suitable for the rare calmer days .

[David Davis]

I agree with the Engine Doctor.

When there was 1.5 lbs of lead in my J60 it handled a wind very well. When it was lighter it got blown about a bit. Having discovered this, I left it at home if it was windy!

My favourite memory of this model is flying it about at high altitude with the HP VT 25 burbling away on hot Sunday afternoons, the engine barely audible and the sky larks singing their delight in the weather.

[Ross Burgess]

Thanks again, Denis and David.

Work continues - getting close.. but no cigar yet.

The 30 will no longer fly this model.... sadly, the engine mount holes are too different from the 40 to interchange them - so, the FA40 A it is.

New tank fitted today to replace the OK model Co. 60 oz... I went with a 6 oz again due to maybe having to use more power than just a slight tick-over.. we'll see - I'm pretty confident it will stay up in the air for as long as I have patience to do the lazy circuits.

As for changing things out to reduce weight - I fully understand you position, Denis - but in my application it simply won't work.

I believe making most use of the necessary weight to get the c of g forward has resulted in using these bigger servo's, the plan undercarriage and alloy wheels.

I now have the 3 0z Du-bro chrome plated brass spinner and all assembled without the nose block - it is just a smidge over 4 1/2 pounds... so, I think we're in with a chance with this over-powered model.

I have done a bit of reading of late on how the tailplane is affected by an model - and I do understand what your saying David.

If I don't apply sufficient weight to the front of this model - and the c of g is further back than it should be - there will be almost zero inherent stability - and beyond a very slightly set rearwards c of g - an almost unconrtrollable model.

Too much weight to get the c of g far enough forward makes for a heavier model - and we all know that heavy models are hippos in the air - they just want to sink.

This Junior 60 model has a lot of lift in the wing - I am very hopeful that it will be sufficient for the 4 1/2 pounds I am inflicting on it.

Under power, it could go anywhere.. we won't know until it gets to flying speed down the strip - and once I achieve this, I believe the urge to set it in flight will be too tempting.

We have a lot of tall grass/reeds at the north end of our strip - not good at this time of year (summer) due to the plethora of snakes which abound in there at the billabong - but a lot safer than the trees and fence at the southern end of the field... so, I'm guessing I'll wait for either a windless or a northerly blowing wind for its maiden.

The 40 is only marginally heavier than the 1979 30... it actually sits lower on the model... the original rockers and high lift central throws on the pivots made for a very tall motor.

The 40 is very low in comparison.

Ok, couple of things to add... I had a terrible time trying to get the throttle linkage working... bought one of those Du-bro 4 stroke linkages and spent a good hour trying to work out any conceivable way in which it would work with the Saito 40 in this model... gave up when all I was going to get from the kit was the pivot in the motor throttle linkage... so, just grabbed one out of my spare parts and put the kit back into it's package for another model. Principle is sound - but it just doesn't work on this model with the wood engine bearers and very short distance from firewall to engine.

I ended up simply fabricating a thin stainless steel rod and put a double bend in one end through the servo arm and a couple of in llne bends then into the adjustable rod holder.

I have full throttle travel nearing the limits of the servo - which I will program into the Tx.

Fuel tank - I don't know, but I may have "invented" something here.... chances are, it's been done before - but I haven't seen it.

I was going to create a masterpiece of wood for the tank to nestle into surrounded by latex foam.. but somewhere in the madness which was about to unfold - I found another way of getting the issue resolved -and at probably less than 1/2 the weight.

I built a cradle for the round bottom tank not long after putting the fuselage together.

At the same time, I built a self-contained battery box beneath it. A hatch on the underside gives access to the LiFe battery -which is enveloped in latex rubber.

The final part of the fuel tank concerned me for quite some time - then I had a "Eureka" moment...

Two thin carbon rods passing down each side of the tank cradle.

At each end of these rods, I would run a rubber band from one side and up and over the tank then down to the other.

This is repeated at the other end of the tank. Access is very easy through the open cabin roof with wing removed.

On the base of the cradle, there is a pad of latex rubber... so - effectively, the tank is completely suspended in rubber - of one kind or the other.

A small piece of latex is placed on a rear positioned cross member between the fuselage sides and the two silicone hoses passing through the firewall prevent any solid contact.

With two #64 rubber bands across the tank - it won't shift.. but can happily sit in suspension.. I believe this is all that will be necessary.

So, tank is now fitted - so too is the throttle control.

I am now fitting a UBEC between the battery and the switch - a couple of the servos weren't too happy when I connected up with a fully charged 7.2 v... the 5V UBEC has made them a lot more comfortable.

So, now it's down to the windows and making up the front nose block and cowl.

Any suggestions how to go about these....?

Pix tomorrow... just to give you a view of what I have done in the fuel tank/throttle linkage areas..

frats,

Rosco

[Engine Doctor]

The lasting memory of my old Jnr 60 was using it to take some aerial photos. I fixed one of those mini hand wind cameras onto the fuz and climbed to great height and took a pic . Then dived it down to land wound on the camera and took off or another pic . 20 pics took quite some time . Then they had to go to the developers ( remember those days?) got the pics back all excited only to find that the camera had a light leak that obliterated over half the pic and the other half was blurred ! Those were the days . Oh and I got sun burnt into the bargain

PS the camera learn't to fly without the plane

[Ross Burgess]

Thanks Engine Doctor - this one won't get thrown around in wind.... unless it's blustery.

I have been recently flying a 30 year old Pilot Attacker 28 - which I converted to electric.

The little model is a dream to fly....not particularly aerobatic (it has its quirks) - but is stable enough for 3 turn spins and not-too-slow ... slow rolls.

Having converted myself to Mode 2 since my recent (2 years and a bit) return to r/c fixed wing... my aerobatic skills (along with a much more "senior" eye/hand co-ordination) are very much well below the gold wing level which was rated at some years back.

However, getting to the point - the Attacker does all I need for thrills... I am in the process of completing another relic which didn't come to fuition - a 40 sized Stik (second one).

The Stik I have been flying certainly reveals all my inadequacies...

So, I'm really hoping my Junior will be everything you suggest it will.... I just want something I can truddle around in for a good 15 minutes... doing lazy circuits and figure 8's...

I doubt very much that I'll ever try to loop this dear little thing... let alone try to roll it...there simply is no point - it was never designed to go upside down - everything about it seems to suggest it will fight you every second that you attempt to get that pendulum looking undercarriage and wheels above the fuselage.

If it will putter around effortlessly way up above the "maniacs" who have a certain need for speed and thrills - well, I will have achieved what I set out to.... save that I really did want the little open rocker 30 in this model... maybe we'll build a version 2.... they are a lot easier the second time around...

Thanks again, folk.... will post up some pix tomorrow... it's just before midnight here and my tapping away at this noisy keyboard is keeping the mice awake....

frats,

Rosco

[Mike Etheridge 1]

I still have not completed the refurbishment of my 1962 KK New Junior 60, but have added an elevator and re-covered the tailplane and fin with Oracover. The extra snake tube has been added for the elevator so the fuselage is almost ready for covering apart from the replacement of some fuel / oil soaked balsa that probably will not accept the Oracover?

An earlier picture:

[Ross Burgess]

Very nice Mike,

I now have some inkling as to how to do the nose - your blockwork is quite visible, thanks.

Yes, once oil gets into balsa - it's almost impossible to remove it.. acetone seems to get some of it out - but it usually comes to the surface again.

You might like to try balsaloc or Deluxe covergrip - after a liberal dousing of repeated applications of acetone.

One word of warning when using acetone to do this though - don't flood any area where there are glue joints or the like...

I have been a long standing advocate for the application of fibreglass resin in areas prone to being subjected to castor oil (or modern day synthetics).

Anything which "can" get attacked usually gets at least one application of resin - left for a week and then sanded down to a thin layer.

Be careful sanding fibreglass resin - it is "deadly"... your body will build up a intolerance to the fine dust - and it can cause breathing issues - if it happens, nothing the ambo's can do for you ... so, be warned - outside and with a face-mask on .. make sure to wash any exposed skin and dump your clothes in the tub when finished.

I suffered something very similar to this back in 1982... I was sanding down the 40 sized Stik, which I had completely painted with the stuff... amazing finish after painting with enamel....

My feet "blew" up... to the point I had to take my shoes of... it took days for them to return to normal....

My GP then told me of the dangers of the stuff... I don't believe this is widely known.

So, if you do take my suggestion - and decide ever to use this resin and sand it - be very careful.

It's fine if you just paint it on... no issue at all... but the sanded dust will eventually overcome your resistance to it.

Update on my Jnr 60.... tossed and turned all night over the link rod from the servo to the throttle... will attempt a cable connection today - and move the throttle servo back into the cabin.

frats,

Rosco

[Ross Burgess]

Ok - pix as promised.

In the second one - you can see the 40 bolted in. The prop washer (pressed onto crank) is exactly where it is on the plan.

The mid height of the fuel tank is exactly at the needle valve.

You can see two black lines on the top of the cabin framework - this is where I have marked the 30% of wing chord length from the leading edge where the re-positioned wing sits (1" further back than on the plan).

My wing dowels have been moved accordingly so that they are just outward of where the wing sits.

The #64 rubber bands stretch almost to their limit when crossed from the rear of one side to the front of the other. I intend to fit about 10 bands all up - I certainly don't want them to snap in mid-flight.

 

first pic - looking down into the fuel tank bay.

You can see the open frame cradle I built to support the tank.

It also shows the stubby short lengths of dowel epoxied through two thicknesses of ply and also onto the former and tank cradle.

The two lengths of carbon fibre have been epoxied into the cradle on each side - #64 rubber bands will hold the tank down onto the cradle - it will sit on a fitted piece of latex foam between it and the cradle.

You can also see the sealed out battery box below the tank cradle.

Access to this is from a removable hatch on the underside. This hatch is of ply, the front has a ply tongue which fits into a slot under the former. At the rear, a piece of spruce was fitted transversely across the fuselage bottom sheet. A hole drilled through the hatch and into this spruce affords a wood screw with washer to hold it in place.

 

Ok - pix..

 

 

 

 

 

frats,

Rosco

Edited By Ross Burgess on 23/01/2016 00:59:27

Edited By Ross Burgess on 23/01/2016 01:00:38