kc Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Part of the skill of building from a plan is to............spot the problem areas in advance! Saves hacking your beautiful balsa work around afterwards to make it work. My advice is to look carefully at the holes in F7 to see if you think they will align and also to see if you think the exit point of the elevator snake will allow the clevis to clear fuselage sufficiently to avoid the threaded part going into the snake and catching. It seems such a shame that Peter's original drawing which shows all these items correctly should have been changed.for the one printed in RCME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Posted by Peter Miller on 20/12/2015 21:21:05: Posted by AVC on 20/12/2015 21:11:44: So it will be the "Fatty Ballerina" May be it should have been called "Fantasia" ... or perhaps "Fatasia" Geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Let's put it this way lads - hands up if you've ever built a model from a plan where there was no "error" or discrepency at all,.......well my hand is not up for one! And guess very few would be. There's always something that isn't quite right. The year we did the Tucano it was two things; first the fuselage side members were too tall and had to be trimmed back by about 3/8" if I remember correctly, second it was the nose-ring, it was too small. The year we did the Dawn Flyer - I can't recall the details but I seem to remember one of the formers were incorrect. But we worked around all these things and fixed them - no big problem. It's all part and parcel of the game I think. In reality the plan is a "guide" - we're not building some ultra high precission item here. A bit of well-informed fettling, in the time honoured tradition, we see us through. The first couple of experineced builders will be able to quickly identify any problems - we'll all have a nice chat and work out what to do about it. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Posted by Geoff Sleath on 21/12/2015 14:17:26: Posted by Peter Miller on 20/12/2015 21:21:05: Posted by AVC on 20/12/2015 21:11:44: So it will be the "Fatty Ballerina" May be it should have been called "Fantasia" ... or perhaps "Fatasia" Geoff Ah, but you missed the point. In the Disney cartoon Fantasia, a film which, believe it or not actually held an RAF audience spellbound, one of the sequences were hippopotamuses dancing a ballet it tutus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 21/12/2015 14:21:44: Let's put it this way lads - hands up if you've ever built a model from a plan where there was no "error" or discrepency at all,.......well my hand is not up for one! And guess very few would be. There's always something that isn't quite right. T Well, I do remember a plan from the old Model Aircraft back in the50s or so for a twin engined Japanese bomber. No where did it show where the wing was supposed to fit on the fuselage. Now that was a problem!!! At least the plan was a sensible price in those days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolstonFlyer Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Today I have been to the local copy shop and got some single sided copies of the plan made on thicker paper, so I can draw on them and cut the parts out etc. So just waiting for the experts to show their modifications to fit an electric motor, in particular BEB because I have got the same SK3 4240 740Kv motor as he mentioned, so ready and waiting for the new year. Edited By WolstonFlyer on 21/12/2015 14:53:48 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Hofman Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I have a SK3 4240 620kv in another plane which drew much less current then motocalc predicted. When measuring the rpm it was running much slower than it should. It ran as if it was a .... 520kv motor, which is another variant you can buy. Apperently mislabeled in the factory. Has any of you checked the 740kv motor by measuring V,A and rpm to check whether this really is a 740kv? if so, what where the numbers and what propeller did you use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Hi Lucas, I wouldn't worry too much about that. First of all you can't really measure it accurately - remember its the "no load" condition - so in practice you never get it. Secondly it will be about right and then we fine tune it with prop selection and watt meter. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtom39 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I'm having one of those days with my computer so here again (apologies if it is repeated!) I have a spare (Unrun) OS 40 Surpass . I've not put new as the box is tatty! Its for sale at £120 plus post (no offers please) . If interested then please PM me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hayward. Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Hi, I am preparing to build the Ballerina and have been studying the plan and looking at Peter's build blog, in particular this image of the fuselage. Looking at the plan, if I am reading it correctly, the upper line of the fuselage at the rear steps down to the level of the stabaliser about 3/4" behind F10, this also being the front edge of the stabaliser; however the image in Peter's blog appears to show the fuselage step down at F10. Again if I am reading the plan correctly the outline of the fuselage sides are indicated by filled arrow heads and the rear doubler by open arrow heads which as I say as far as I can see clearly show a step 3/4" after F10. Any comments would be appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Well spotted. I had not noticed that.. I am afraid that it is the RCM&E draughtsman who thinks he knows better than the designer. He can't help it and we should pity the mentally afflicted even when it could ( not in this case) seriously affect a model. In fact the tailplane butts up against Former 10 as shown in the photos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hayward. Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Thanks Peter, it seems the guy has almost designed a model all of his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatgoesup.... Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 So does this mean that the tail plane is drawn the wrong size too ? I just measured the width at centre as 110mm (ish) which will not reach the rear of F10 - Or am I confused with what you guys are saying ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVC Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 The stab in the plan will fit in the step in the plan. Peter, could you please give the dimensions of the original tail plane to compare with the plan?Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVC Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 The stab in the plan will fit in the step in the plan. Peter, could you please give the dimensions of the original tail plane to compare with the plan?Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVC Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 The stab in the plan will fit in the step in the plan. Peter, could you please give the dimensions of the original tail plane to compare with the plan?Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 No,the stab is the right shape but if positioned as shown you then have to make a cut out in the rudder to clear the elevator joiner Just butt the tailplane up against F-10. If you want to be fussy you can fill in under the fin between the tailplane and rear of the fuselage with some scrap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVC Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Posted by Peter Miller on 28/12/2015 10:38:59: Just butt the tailplane up against F-10. If you want to be fussy you can fill in under the fin between the tailplane and rear of the fuselage with some scrap. If you do so, be careful to allow clearance for the joiner in the scrap piece at the rear of the fuselage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hayward. Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 A further query: measuring using the top view of the fuselage on the plan, all formers to F7 are the same width i.e. 3 1/4", however I notice all the individual drawings of the formers match this apart from F7 which is actually 3 5/16". Am I being too fussy, or should I expect F7 to be the same? I am sure it needs to be the same width as the other formers when built otherwise the fuselage will bulge very slightly at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I think David is right here. Not about being "too fussy", of course... but measuring the individual formers, F7 seems to be 2mm wider than F1 > F6. As Peter already stated that the published drawing is showing F8 & aft formers drawn 4,5mm too wide, I guess it's just a matter of getting a 'smooth' curve between F6 and F10... where is my ruler? ... Happy measuring Chris Brussels, Belgium Edited By McG 6969 on 28/12/2015 12:43:46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVC Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Is it not this due to the 1/32 doublers? I don't have the plan in front of me at the minute but if my memory is any good, the doublers cover to F6, so F7 should be wider to account for themEdited By AVC on 28/12/2015 13:09:14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hayward. Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Yes, I believe you are right, F7 is the 1st former after the ply doublers either side so 1/16th wider would be correct. Thank you for your response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 AVC is right. F7 is correct, it has to be a little wider as there is no ply doubler at that point. Plan is correct. Regarding the tailplane it would seem the elevator goes partly over the fuselage and the wide cutout in elevator seems to allow for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 As the doubler stops between F6 & F7, I guess you made a good point here, AVC. Thanks Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 In fact all the formers behind F-6 are 5/16" too wide. This changes the plan view of the model behind F-6. I suggest that you just trim it down to suit.. Sometimes I wonder why I take the trouble to make sure that I get the get drawing right. I get criticised nor my photos not being perfect and then they accept appalling drawings. Oh well, that is their work so that is OK! 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.