Radio Queen.

[Len Brown]

Really pretty result. I was going to power mine with an OS40FS but I think the electric version you have made is much better. How far back from the leading edge did you put the balance point ( C.G.)? As shown on the plan or further forward?

Len Brown

[edwards flyboy]

I went with the front spar for the balance point,however it,s only had 2 flights and it needs full down elevator to stop it climbing ,this is a flat climb, not nose up. I did queery the down thrust on the forum , the general view was leave it as per plan

Ican try some downthrust on the motor, or maybe lift the trailing rdge by an eighth.

Anyone cured this problem.

[Stevo]

Have you checked the incidence? This problem sounds awfully familiar.

[PatMc]

I wouldn't mess about with the incidence or down thrust, they're basicaly hangovers from free flight/single channel/pre-proportional multi days. Just control the climb with throttle & the speed with elevator. If you want to go a bit faster for a prolonged period use some down trim or if your Tx has flight phase control program a "fast" phase of some down trim on a switch.

I've flown my Junior 60 since 1986 with the cg over an inch behind the plan position & with permanent down elevator trim.

[edwards flyboy]

PatMc

This is a little more climb than is normal, full down has to be held in with full throttle, the model is so docile and can be flown around like this, aileron response is great and needs no rudder in the turns, the 2 flights were in a mild breeze. God help me if its blowing a little. Going to have to do something to try and sort it out when it,s next flown

thanks for your input.

Regards Bernard.

[Bob Cotsford]

This is the same as my Eros, I think it's just the consequence of using modern power levels on airframes designed for very low power output engines. The Eros will potter around quite happily on 1/4 throttle.

[PatMc]

Posted by edwards flyboy on 13/08/2015 12:31:45:

PatMc

This is a little more climb than is normal, full down has to be held in with full throttle, the model is so docile and can be flown around like this, aileron response is great and needs no rudder in the turns, the 2 flights were in a mild breeze. God help me if its blowing a little. Going to have to do something to try and sort it out when it,s next flown

thanks for your input.

Regards Bernard.

Benard,
I'd simply readjust the elevator, at the model with the Tx stick at neutral, to give as much down as will hold straight & level at the desired cruise speed with the throttle at around 25% - 33%. This way you will have good climb control via the throttle without using any elevator then if you want to cruise at a faster pace a little down trim held in or "dialled" in as you open the throttle.

It doesn't matter if the elevators are permanently set with some down, this will have no ill effect on take off etc but may look a bit odd to the anal-fixated.

[Old Geezer]

These entries take me back 35-odd years, when I built a Radio Queen (took me 18 months - but that's another story) looked really nice in natural solartex and a big bouncy air wheels. I first put a bog standard Enya 40 on the 'Queen, and she was vastly overpowered, the first flight was nearly her last, gave her The Beans and she was off the ground in twenty or so feet and climbing like a rocket, throttled back and she stalled - the next half minute was a blur until I got her properly under control and there or thereabouts trimmed. At the speed a Radio Queen is comfortable thrust lines, unless miles out, are of only academic importance.

The Radio Queen was never that nice with the Enya, then I acquired 2nd hand early OS 40 FS and the 'Queen was transformed, long gentle take offs, long long flights puttering about at head level or almost out of sight, just as long as there wasn't much wind. The returning to the ground was lovely too, floating in for an extended rolling landing.

[Mark Stringer]

Ailerons!!!! What ever next?
Mine flys nice and slow with rudder and elevator and a geared electric motor - would probably fly with a .25 or less up front - thermals with the motor off on nice days.. don't over power her

[PatMc]

 

 

Re the power for RQ :
it was our club monthly meeting tonight & I was talking to our oldest most senior member who flew a RQ up until a couple of years ago. He reckoned that it flew beautifuly powered by a 25 but when he upgraded it to a 40 it was nowhere near as nice to fly.

Gordon with his RQ...

and RQ without Gordon.

Re ailerons on a RQ : a thread on RCG gives some of the model's history including the first model that crossed the English Channel. As related in the thread the man who "practicalised" (redesigned) the model from Col. Taplin's original design in order to make it suitable for the channel crossing & for ED to produce as a kit was Peter Cock.
And halfway down this pageof that thread (report #24) contains a photo of Peter taken in 2007 holding his aileron equipped version RQ.

Edited By PatMc on 13/08/2015 23:36:48

[Keith Orr 1]

Hello,

Interested in your ailerons, I posted a query about that subject earlier this week, I was asking for any details, sketches, drawings, etc, I did get plenty of useful comments but most were for leaving well alone, SO, the alteration to plan wing is easy enough but have you had to adjust the dihedral.

Look forward to hearing from you.

 

Edited By Keith Orr 1 on 04/12/2019 07:21:37

[Nigel Dell]

That is a cracking looking Radio Queen E/FB 👍🏻 These vintage designs still look great don’t they.

[David Davis]

Posted by Keith Orr 1 on 04/12/2019 07:20:11:

Hello,

Interested in your ailerons, I posted a query about that subject earlier this week, I was asking for any details, sketches, drawings, etc, I did get plenty of useful comments but most were for leaving well alone, SO, the alteration to plan wing is easy enough but have you had to adjust the dihedral.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Edited By Keith Orr 1 on 04/12/2019 07:21:37

Keith if you must fit ailerons to your Radio Queen then yes reduce the dihedral. The wing on E/FB's model has far less dihedral then the red one pictured two posts above and the electric Radio Queen filmed in flight on Page 1 seems to have excessive dihedral to me.

Personally I think that it's a pity that such a historic model should be altered in this way but it's your model and it's a free country.

[Piers Bowlan]

Posted by Keith Orr 1 on 04/12/2019 07:20:11:

Hello,

Interested in your ailerons, I posted a query about that subject earlier this week, I was asking for any details, sketches, drawings, etc, I did get plenty of useful comments but most were for leaving well alone, SO, the alteration to plan wing is easy enough but have you had to adjust the dihedral.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Whether to fit ailerons or not is just another choice of whether you want to copy the 'traditional original' or move with the times. No right or wrong answer here, as it is your hobby and there are no rules. AKA; electric or 2ST/4ST engine or even diesel. Or perhaps film covering or tissue, nylon or silk. You could even fit single channel 2.4GHz if that floats your boat! Like I say, the choice is yours.

Regarding ailerons if you fit them you should definitely reduce the dihedral as several others have suggested or the handling will be horrible and in fact the ailerons may not work at all due to adverse yaw as a consequence of the exaggerated dihedral. Aileron differential or coupled aileron and rudder might help but the solution is less dihedral if you plan to fit ailerons.

Just my 2p worth. Have fun.

[Ernst Grundmann]

Hello,

My name is Ernst Grundmann and I am from The Netherlands. As a member of a group of model air plane builders and pilots I want to ask you some things. Our group goes by the name "The First Aviators" because we want to build an fly very early aircraft and aircraft used for records or special events.

We have already made some special flights and we want to make an other special flight. We want to repeat the first flight of a radio controlled model air plane across the English channel.

This is not completely new for us because we have already flown across the channel twice before in 2018. This was with a very old model build by one of our members about 40 years ago. The old 26cc Olson engine on it did not run reliable any more and was lacking power. It was replaced by a much more modern Zenoah 23cc.

Enough about this. We are planning to make the flight with the same model as the first flight, the Radio Queen. We want the model to be as much as possible like the original model. We already have a good running ED Hunter 3.46cc Diesel.
Here is my first question: On the engine they used a special exhaust stack to make sure as much as possible of the oily stuff gets outside the model. You can see it on some old photo's and it is mentioned in some articles I have read. Does anybody know how this exhaust stack is made? Are there photo's or a drawing of this somewhere?

Unfortunately using an original radio control set is not possible. First of all it is no longer available so we would have to build it ourselves. Not impossible, there are some electronic engineers among our members. The biggest problem is that there are so many other radio signals in the air right now. This will cause far to much interference to make a safe flight possible. We will use “modern” 35MHz equipment.

It is my task to make good drawings so we can build this model and this proves to be more work than I thought. The drawings available on the internet are a good starting point but there are quite some discrepancies with the original model. Some things can be seen on the few old pictures I have found. Some other things are still on the drawings I have but an important thing is not clear to me.
What was the original wingspan? I have seen 6’, 6’10”, 7’ and also 8’. Looking at the few pictures on the net I think 8’ is too much but 7’ could be just right. This would make the spaces between the ribs just big enough to fit 2 tanks, 1 in each wing, holding about 12 once each. Exactly what the original model had.

Is there somebody who has more info for us? Any info is welcome! We are planning to make the flight next year.

Edited By Steve Hargreaves - Moderator on 03/06/2020 14:13:48

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Sounds like a great project Ernst....we wish you well....

One of the UKs traditional kit suppliers Ben Buckle Vintage Kits offer a kit of the Radio Queen... **LINK**

And there is a copy of the plan to download from the Outerzone Plans Website alongside some details of another epic crossing.. **LINK**

Maybe these will be of use/interest

Edited By Steve Hargreaves - Moderator on 03/06/2020 14:29:56

[Ernst Grundmann]

Thanks for your info.

We have the Outerzone plans, these are our starting point. One of our members has the model from a Ben Buckle kit, he can not find the plans any more but there are to many discrepancies with the original model.

We really hope that there are some people that know about the original model.

[brokenenglish]

Ernst, I don't know what you mean by "discrepancies".

To be complete: The original plan was drawn by Colonel Taplin in the late forties. This first plan is easily identified by rounded tips on the fin and tailplane.

The original was almost immediately modified (in 1949) for production as an ED kit. This plan is virtually identical to the original Taplin plan, but is identifiable by the squared off tips on the fin and tailplane.

This second (ED kit) plan was photocopied by Ben Buckle, who added a simple modern radio installation.

The best plan of all (my opinion) is the very slightly updated one drawn by Skystone plans (JJ), in the USA. This is very close to the original versions but with a few sensible and very minor updates (e.g. saddle clamp undercarriage attachment). This plan is available on Outerzone.

I have all these plans, and there are no really significant differences, which is why I questioned your term "discrepancies"...

[David Davis]

Perhaps Ernst is confused by the picture of the Radio Queen in the ED advert which made reference to the cross Channel flight. The model in the advert has a pointed fin but the model which crossed the Channel obviously had the squared off fin and horizontal tailplane the same as the Ben Buckle kit and every other Radio Queen I've ever seen including my own. Perhaps these were the discrepancies Ernst was referring to.

There is some debate as to whether the Channel crossing model had a straight dihedral or a flat centre section. It's well known that fuel was stored in the wings so maybe extra fuel was contained in the centre section as well as the tranparent wing tanks shown in the photograph.

Best of luck with the venture Ernst. Will you be flying it single channel?

[brokenenglish]

David, I don't know where you've seen any "debate"... I've never seen any such suggestion.

Anyway I checked. I have a close-up photo in front of me and it's very clear that the cross-channel model definitely had the "Vee" centre section, with the wings joined exactly as per the plan. There is no "flat centre section".

[Ernst Grundmann]

The discrepancies are the rudder, the tail skid, the nose of the model and some other minor changes.

Just to be sure I downloaded the drawing from Outerzone and it does differ from the drawing I already have.

The nose and some other changes are marked on this drawing so I can change my drawing accordingly. But the rudder still remains and I do not know what the original wingspan was. As I wrote before I found 4 different sizes.

It is our intention to build the model as close to the original as we can. Some changes may be necessary but we want to avoid this if we can.

[brokenenglish]

Ernst, I'll be back with some more info tomorrow. It's too late now.

But the RQ doesn't have a tail skid. It has a tail wheel, mounted fairly forward, about 15 or 20 cm forward of the tailplane.

[Ernst Grundmann]

The original model that crossed the channel had a tail skid. The almost mid fuselage weel is a change that has been made later. It is possible that the tail skid was only on the channel crossing model because it is lighter than a weel and weight was (is?) a very big issue here.

But you are right it is late and I will be back tomorrow afternoon. Thanks for your help so far, we appreciatie it very much.

[David Davis]

Posted by brokenenglish on 03/06/2020 19:24:26:

David, I don't know where you've seen any "debate"... I've never seen any such suggestion.

Anyway I checked. I have a close-up photo in front of me and it's very clear that the cross-channel model definitely had the "Vee" centre section, with the wings joined exactly as per the plan. There is no "flat centre section".

Quite right Brian, the model which crossed the Channel had a Vee centre section as per plan and as per every Radio Queen I've ever seen, but somewhere in the back of my mind I had a memory of someone referring to a flat centre section on a Radio Queen and I found it here over on RC Groups Post 28. **LINK** .This thread started off discussing Col Taplin's electric powered Radio Queen then deviated off into discussion of the Channel Crossing and Radio Queens in general. Apparently there is a replica Radio Queen in the Academy of Model Aeronautics Museum in Muncie Indiana.

At the end of the RCG thread, there are a couple of posts from an Australian modeller who built a replica of the model which crossed Channel, powered by an ED Hunter diesel and guided by a restored ED ground based transmitter modified to 2.4Ghz.

Finally, there are two written accounts of the flight in the RCG thread. The American account of the flight, written 45 years after the event, claims that the model took 8 minutes to reach 1000 feet (305 metres.) The Aeromodeller account, written at the time, claims that the model took 20 minutes to reach 900 feet (274 metres.) Either way the Channel Crossing Radio Queen was no "homesick angel!"

[brokenenglish]

Ernst, first of all, you need to define your reference. Over the years, people everywhere have written many things that are either correct, or partially correct and partially wrong, or totally wrong. If you adopt all such "sources" as a reference, the result can only be confusion.
For example, when you say that the channel crossing model had a tail skid, you're right, but when you say that the tail wheel was added later, you're wrong. The original had a tail wheel and I think all the various versions have a tail wheel, except for the channel crossing plane.

I didn't know the people involved at the time, but I do remember the channel crossing and I did know Ben Buckle.

So first, please define which Radio Queen you want:
1. The original Colonel Taplin's.
2. The ED kit version, which has become the generally accepted reference, thanks to Ben Buckle, or
3. The channel crossing plane.

When you've decided which reference you want, then work on that basis and stop observing that there are other versions and minor build differences between individual examples (I think these are what you're calling "discrepancies"!). This just causes confusion.

If you choose the ED kit version or Colonel Taplin's original as the reference, there is no problem, as the plans are available. However, if you choose the channel crossing plane, you'll have a problem because, as far as I know, the modifications and changes made were not documented, no plan exists for that particular plane, and you will only have photographs, etc. Plus the fact that you don't need fuel tanks in the wings, etc.

Finally, something you'll enjoy. I've extracted a short video sequence from a 1949 Pathé movie, which shows Peter Cock flying the prototype ED kit version, in 1949. The look of happiness and satisfaction on his face, when he realises that he has a successful flight, is pure magic. Note also that this plane flew, and even took off, with a 1948 ED 2.5cc diesel, and the radio gear must have been very heavy...
A wonderful piece of video! Have a look:

Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:25:16

Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:28:11