Something that will bounce

[i12fly]

Could someone decipher what some of these manoeuvres actually are....

Some are obvious but some quite bizarre. Can you combine the enema with the Aussie toilet bowl? Or would that put you in a flat spin before you're finished in a death slide

[Paul Marsh]

You have to avoid the ground first then work upwards...

If you have trouble landing and taking off, reliably, then 3D is the last thing on your mind. Best to get the basics, then able to fly the plane where you want in any condition, wind, snow, etc then if you can do that without breaking models, then next is aero's.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Paul Marsh on 10/07/2018 20:14:50:

You have to avoid the ground first then work upwards...

If you have trouble landing and taking off, reliably, then 3D is the last thing on your mind. Best to get the basics, then able to fly the plane where you want in any condition, wind, snow, etc then if you can do that without breaking models, then next is aero's.

True enough, but is there any suggestion that the OP has trouble with take-offs and landings?

I apologise if I missed it, but I read it as he crashes whilst practising the specific 3D manoeuvres, but is a competent flyer otherwise...

[Peter Miller]

Having reread some of the earlier posts on this thread. Two things come to mind.

It pays to make sure that the battery cannot come out of the model.

To quote the late, great NIel Williams.

"The most useless comodity in Aerobatics is the ammount of sky ABOVE you"

[The Wright Stuff]

Indeed Peter, but we all make mistakes.

A general comment (not aimed at Peter or anyone else in particular) that I have been bottling up for a while, but now feel the need to say.

There seems to be a certain amount of condescending glee on the forum whenever someone is asking for help and perceived to be wanting to progress too quickly. It isn't just this thread, it happens quite a lot. I'm sure that most of the time it isn't even intentional, but I worry it puts new forum members off. All the advice is based on experience, and is very good advice, but there are more constructive, less superior and less abrasive ways of getting it across.

It only happens with the flying aspect. Not other topics. If someone asks for help with choosing glue, there is never a sarcastic response about learning to use Pritt Stick first. If someone asks for help with designing electric set-ups, there is never a sarcastic response about going to playschool to learn maths. There is no criticism in build blogs suggesting that the modeller is wasting his time. So why the attitude when it comes to the flying bit?

Surely if we value our own advice enough, then we will be motivated to put it across in the manner in which it is most likely to positively influence the person at which it is aimed?

Ironically, I'm aware this may not be taken in the positive spirit in which it is intended, and I apologise in advance if I'm being too harsh, but I care about the hobby and its future as much as anyone, and I cringe whenever I see these threads turning nasty!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Sam Longley]

Looked at the reviews & vids & took Trebor's advice & have ordered the Wargo Yac 55

Thanks to everyone who chose to reply. I did not take everyone's advice, (that would be impossible me thinks!!) but I have heeded many of the comments, so they were not in vain I can assure you. --- But I have not bought a football; Tom Sharp 2

I now want a model to put my DLE 20cc engine in, to practice the IMAC, It is surprising how difficult it is to find a nice ARF that will fit the bill.

But somehow I am not sure that I dare ask for a while.I dare not risk another head chopping experience just yet. ( can one imagine the---"You cannot try 2 things at once etc etc"

Thanks all

[ken anderson.]

Sam, enjoy and let us know how you get on......

ken anderson..ne..1....flying dept.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Of course you can work on two aspects at once - well not usually "at once" but certainly in parallel.

I guess you are looking for a 4-5Kg-ish arobat yes? Well in my experience a model that looks great and always seems to fly well is the Sbach 342. PilotRC do some excellent versions, but perhaps a little large for 20cc. But there are loads of others

BEB

[Gary Manuel]

Have a look at the Seagull Yak 54 Sam

[Sam Longley]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/07/2018 17:57:16:

Of course you can work on two aspects at once - well not usually "at once" but certainly in parallel.

I guess you are looking for a 4-5Kg-ish arobat yes? Well in my experience a model that looks great and always seems to fly well is the Sbach 342. PilotRC do some excellent versions, but perhaps a little large for 20cc. But there are loads of others

BEB

Pilot are nicely built planes but, as far as I can see, the specs all show them as being for electrics. I sometimes wonder if an airframe built for electric can take the vibration of a petrol engine along with the strain of starting pressure etc

We have had some Seagull models in the club but they seem so badly built; falling apart (one in mid air) kind of puts me off them

[trebor]

Some are good and some are down right bad

I have a second hand one of these that I,m fixing up and these are well made https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Seagull-Edge-540-180-Blue-ARTF-Deluxe-Series-Sea-26A-5500020-/263353864953

Edited By trebor on 11/07/2018 18:35:51

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ASH.]

I have to disagree Sam, Seagull models are some of the best. They have good wood, excellent construction and are superb value for money. Cannot be beaten. As with all ARTF's you have to strengthen in places, it's the norm. Perhaps the ones you've seen fall apart were poorly built, (cheap glues etc).

Also, 3D models need high power to weight so are built for lightness and so are inherently more fragile.

[trebor]

I picked up one of these but the quality is no where near as good as the Edge **LINK**

[Sam Longley]

Posted by trebor on 11/07/2018 19:55:02:

I picked up one of these but the quality is no where near as good as the Edge **LINK**

With due respect. You are contradicting yourself.

On one hand you are telling me about how good a particular seagull model is then on the other you are telling me that the quality of another model is no where near as good.

That demonstrates inconsistencies in construction does it not

Furthermore, ASH suggests that perhaps the models I have seen might just have had poor glues. Well yes they did! & that was the problem- They fell apart

So if a particular manufacturer has inconsistencies across its range (within not dissimilar price ranges) then that makes it very difficult for someone like me to just go & buy a model from them with confidence - Does it not?

I know that other manufacturers have the same problems but one can buy (for instance)a Chris Foss designed plane from Ripmax,& be reasonably certain that it will stay together.(but not all other planes in the Ripmax range)

What model does one look for in the Seagull range (or any other for that matter) to give one confidence in one's purchase?

Plus, who are the good CONSISTENT manufacturers at the sub £300-00 price range in IC planes?

The fact that Pilot are happy to supply replacement wood parts FOC (plus postage) following minor prangs must give one some confidence. I do know club members with good experience of them. So that might be one. Are they priced sub £300-00?

 

Edited By Sam Longley on 11/07/2018 22:32:16

[trebor]

Wow, I was just trying to give you an idea that two models can be different as I said before some are good and some bad.

[Ron Gray]

@Sam - the post from Ash and Trevor is spot on, most, if not all ARTFs need a careful going over with the sticky stuff (CA, epoxy etc) as the quality of the same model from the same supplier can vary so much and I don’t just mean Seagull, Pilot, Great Planes, Hangar 9 all suffer in the same way. Likewise strengthening of firewalls / bulkheads and U/C mountings becomes the norm on most of these too.

The advice being given here is to go into an ARTF build with your eyes open to the fact that re-glueing and strengthening will be required! Those that fall apart are usually ones that haven’t been given ‘the treatment’.

[ASH.]

Sam, when I said 'Perhaps the ones you've seen fall apart were poorly built, (cheap glues etc).' I meant poorly put together by the modeller not the factory. Using pound shop glue instead of quality 2 ton epoxy for tail feathers etc. My mistake for not making it clear.

Sam, we're only trying to help you here because we want you to succeed, and whatever is suggested comes from a good place and with experience. We modellers are a very helpful lot and we want others to have the fun and pleasure we do without too much of the disappointment.

Thanks Ron for explaining it clearly.

[ASH.]

The Seagull Yak 54 Gary suggested above is perfect for your flying needs. For flying IMAC. It looks good too being a scale version of the full size. Nice colour scheme and size with quality covering. What's not to like?

You will have to strenghten it very very well, your petrol engine is going to want to shake it to bits!!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ASH.]

You're never too old in R/C flying for anything.. Seen the OAP's flying drones !

[Peter Miller]

I wil also comment that the way ARTFs are designed is poor and that applies to just about every one.

The problem is that the fuselage sides are fretted out of liteply wood. They feature diagonals and upright members.

The grain runs along the length of the side but look at all the diagonals and vertical members, the grain runs across the narrow dimension. No strength in that at all.

I have seen ARTFs intended for quite large petrol engines that I wouldn't trust to support a .40 four stroke. AND THEY PROVED ME RIGHT!!!!

But of course it is quicker and easier to manufacture the thing that way and if it converts to toothpicks in a crash...Hey! we will sell another model to the guy!!!

[Nigel R]

Yes that sort of design does seem to rather sub optimal. I wonder how much extra production time and material cost it would take, to laser cut and glue together a warren truss. Even if done with liteply the grain could at least be mostly be aligned along the length of each constructional member.

The small foamies seem to do better - at least cutting an entire 3' model from lumps of EPO results in something strong enough to work.

Edited By Nigel R on 12/07/2018 08:53:42