Colin Leighfield Posted June 1, 2019 Author Share Posted June 1, 2019 It’s lean and mean Peter! Always looks as if it’s going somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Evans 3 Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 If you go to R.C. Library by Outerzone you can download for free the "Radio Control Big Four " .This is a very informative article that gives the background to The Galahad ; The Jackdaw ; The Super 60 and the Veron Viscount . I used this as a reference when building the Viscount and my Super Duper last year . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 1, 2019 Author Share Posted June 1, 2019 Thank you Keith, I will definitely enjoy looking at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 I won that book as a prize at school back around 1965! It is sitting next to me on the desk as I type this! My current project is a Veron Viscount, also featured in the book, but that is proving much more difficult than the Jackdaw. It relied heavily on splindle-moulded balsa parts for much of the fuselage structure, and these are proving difficult to replicate! Also the fuselage construction is somewhat odd, and I'm on the point of starting the fuselage again in the way I think it should be done. Decision time is approaching! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 1, 2019 Author Share Posted June 1, 2019 Best of luck Peter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Evans 3 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Hi Peter I too altered some parts of the fuselage to accommodated a PAW 35 .I also made up my own "spindle moulded wood" from block .I used a short kit and obtained the original plan .It's yet to fly .If you click onto my photos you will see some build shots hope this will help Keith . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Thanks, Keith! I'm fitting a GSM 25, which is quite powerful, but bulky for its size. It fits quite well in the engine bay with a dustbin silencer. However, the front fuselage feels quite flimsy. I would have preferred all sheet construction, with internal reinforcement where necessary, rather than the "open frame skinned with balsa" approach. But my main concern is the rear fuselage top decking, and getting it to mate up with the cockpit block that sits over the wing centre section. I haven't tackled either yet, and I keep looking at it wondering which I ought to do first! My inclination is to go with the rear fuselage initially, but with the current cost of balsa, the thought of carving away all that block is giving my wallet a nervous breakdown! I'll ponder a little longer.....! -- Pete P.S. That's a neat looking model you've created! Edited By Peter Christy on 02/06/2019 14:13:21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Pete, blue/pink foam then skin with balsa, possible? I'm interested in your build 'problems' as I got a part kit from Belair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Keith, nice plane. I've also got the book(submitted the copy to outerzone). I've like the shoulder wing viscount for a long time but its still languishing on the to do list. PAW 35 seems like a lot of engine for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Gonzo: Yes, so did I! Beware, the holes for the wing dowels in the fuselage sides do not marry up with the ply reinforcements that form part of the open frame structure. I can see where he's gone wrong - he's assumed the ply parts are the wing seating, but they are not - there's a longeron on top of them! The holes are one longeron's width out of alignment! I also don't like the discontinuity in the fuselage sides around the 2nd bulkhead. There's a butt join between the sheet fuselage sides and the thicker "cheeks" for the tank bay / engine compartment, with only the thin ply plates for strength. Until you get the cheeks on its all very wobbly! I'm tempted to start the fuselage again, with a more conventional structure at the front: Sheet sides, faced with thin ply doublers from the front bulkhead to the wing trailing edge, and internal longerons as needed. Simpler and more rigid. Still have to think about that rear decking, though. I've never used blue foam before - not even sure where to get it - but I have still got my cutter for doing foam wing cores, so it may be a possibility. -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Evans 3 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Not wanting to highjack this thread but some pointers for Peter and GONZO . I made the T.E. from standard stock planed and cut to shape . The cowl was extended by about half an inch The wing tips supplied by Belair are wrong .They have been made to the dimensions as seen in plan view .You will need to make new ones . I increased the rudder area . I made the canopy from a pop bottle . These issues and those you encountered with the fuselage /dowel positions were sent to Belair for consideration . Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Posted by Peter Christy on 01/06/2019 08:53:18: Interesting, PatMc! I take it you didn't have any issues with unwanted zooming when you reduced the downthrust? I don't recall it being a problem at all, Peter. But since early days I've been used to flying gliders (slope & thermal) & manually holding whatever elevator trim is needed for quite extended periods so wouldn't have given much thought to killing any zoom in the Jackdaw. I do remember that I reduced the downthrust because I thought it looked odd & unnecessary. Predictably take-offs were shorter & 3 point landings easier to achieve. PS I only ever flew the Jackdaw with fully proportional gear. Edited By PatMc on 02/06/2019 20:28:30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Posted by Colin Leighfield on 01/06/2019 10:12:43: I definitely wouldn’t mess about with the downthrust because I think they got it right. Colin, they may have got the downtrust right but only for the then contemporary type of radio installation. Single channel had no in flight elevator trim & at most only 2 or 3 fixed position power settings. Reed gear was better but still limited in this respect. Downthrust is only really useful in giving a degree of automatic pitch adjustment linked to power which isn't necessary with fully proportional gear & in any case can be simulated with modern Tx's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 2, 2019 Author Share Posted June 2, 2019 Pat, with all due respect, I don’t agree. I flew this for three years on rudder, elevator and aileron and never saw the slightest reason to reduce the down-thrust. Although forty years ago, I was using proportional gear then. (As mentioned previously, Swan). Rounding out for three-pointing wasn’t the slightest problem, why should down-thrust influence that when you are on a low throttle setting? The Jackdaw had elevator designed into the plan from the beginning and there was no suggestion there that the thrust-line should be changed if you decided to use it. Also if you look at Uproar, probably the top full-house multi at the time, it is set up exactly the same. I appreciate that with all the modern electronic trickery we can mix throttle and elevator to control tendencies to zoom etc, but I much prefer a plane set up so that it doesn’t do it in the first place. As far as I’m concerned the Jackdaw works well as it is, so will keep it as it is. However, we’re all different and should do what suits us best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 As I said, I'm not going to remove the engine for no good reason, but if I have to pull it, I might experiment with the downthrust. But for the moment, it stays as is! Perhaps we ought to start a new thread for the Viscount? And yes, I had the same issue with the wingtips, though I didn't bother re-shaping them. I think they'll be fine (if not *correct*) when covered. Glad to see I'm not the only one who had problems with the wing dowel positions, but I'm amazed at how many others are building this largely forgotten model! -- Pete Edited By Peter Christy on 02/06/2019 23:46:09 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 Colin, you seem to have missed my point. The fact that the Jackdaw was designed to have elevators isn't relevant when there was no effective means of in flight trimming on most radio gear at the time - it would have required an extra two channels & servo with a reed set. Dunno how you do three pointers but I increase the throttle setting to about or above normal cruise as the nose is raised to increase the drag for a high angle of sink. Excess downthrust would pull the nose back down & result in a fast main wheel landing or a low pass aborted landing. There were at least 3 versions of the Uproar 2 significantly different thrust lines & incidences none were set up the same as the Jackdaw. "Modern electronic trickery" enabling throttle elevator mix has been commonly available for around 30 + years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 Pat, not at all, I get all of that and have been using proportional radio for 43 years and am familiar with all of the possibilities. I am just saying that I don’t recognise the issues with the Jackdaw. There was always enough elevator authority to get it off the deck or to round out in a landing. With the OS30 (recognised as a very nice but sedate engine) it was underpowered and I can recognise Peter’s long take-off in long grass with a 30 four stroke that is similar but heavier. Set up as intended and with enough power up front it can be flown perfectly well. I don’t see the need to alter anything. Very soon I will be re-acquainted with it, exactly as it was except for rather more power than previously. Can’t think why it has taken me forty years to get round to getting it flying again, but I do tend to get distracted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 7, 2019 Author Share Posted June 7, 2019 Nearly done. At the moment I have not touched the original paint on wing and tailplane, it’s a bit tatty. Localised repair work on the fuselage silk covering means that I had to do some re-painting, you will see from the photos that it needs one more coat. To me the orange paint I have used is the original colour, so I can’t tell if what appears to be a “redder” original orange apparent here is a result of my ageing brain or because in forty years of lying around in dark places there has been some change in the pigment. Clearly though, once I have secured the receiver and tidied up the wiring, it is ready for the first engine run and text flight. You will see from the photo showing the radio bay the “patina” of years and also the woodwork from the original radio installation, which bearing in mind that the plane is at least 55 years old was most likely reed gear. I’m planning to take it to the SAM35 event at Buckminster on 30 June. When I was given this plane I was told that it originally belonged to Dave Wright and he has told me that he did have a Jackdaw, so I need to show it to him. It has been great bringing this back to life, it’s like meeting up with an old pal and it feels as if it is eager to fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwain Dibley. Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 Top Job, Colin old Bean.. It also sounds like Ms Jackdaw has interesting provenance, which certainly adds to her allure. I am looking forward to the re-maiden, (is that a word ?). Will you get video ? Good luck. D.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 7, 2019 Author Share Posted June 7, 2019 Thank you Dwain. I will be away for a week from Sunday, if there is any chance to try it before then, I will. Otherwise it will be after 16 June. I do plan to have a go at videoing it. Warts and all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 I'm looking forward to the report on the "2nd Maiden" flight! I'm sure you'll love it! There's a guy in our vintage car club who has a completely original Standard 8 from the early 50's. Its only done around 40,000 miles, and never been restored or repainted. I don't think any two panels are quite the same shade any longer, but he's vowed to keep it like that as it has a certain charm to it. I totally agree with him! And I think your Jackdaw has that same period charm! Resist the temptation to do it up any more than is absolutely necessary! It wears its age well! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 7, 2019 Author Share Posted June 7, 2019 Phew! You just saved me a load of work. I will leave it as it is. I remember the Standard 8 well, there were a lot of them about. The 10 and Super 10 were based on it, eventually replaced by the Herald in I think 1958/9. That’s a nice one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 Yes, I have a few tales to tell about Standard 8s and 10s as well! The one in the picture still runs well, and surprisingly, for a side-valve engine, is capable of 46 mpg!!! (Ford 100E's were lucky to get 20!) -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mal brewer Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 Posted by Peter Christy on 08/06/2019 11:26:12: Yes, I have a few tales to tell about Standard 8s and 10s as well! The one in the picture still runs well, and surprisingly, for a side-valve engine, is capable of 46 mpg!!! (Ford 100E's were lucky to get 20!) -- Pete As far as I can recall,the Standard 8's all had overhead valves,the basic engine was later used in Triumph Heralds. Mind,you are right about the Ford 100E's fuel comsumption,which did use a sidevalve engine...…….Mal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 8, 2019 Author Share Posted June 8, 2019 Mal is right about the Standard engine. What is more it had the advantage of wet cylinder liners and was known to wear well. Eventually it was developed to 1,500 cc and was used finally in the Triumph Spitfire (MkV)? And even replaced the “A” series engine in the MG Midget! My first new car in October 1968 was a Triumph Herald 13/60, the ultimate Herald with a lot of improvements and Vitesse shaped bonnet, that had the 1300 cc version and it went really well. That version of the engine went into the 1300 Dolomite. Anyway, I had the pleasure of the first run of the new Enya SS30 this afternoon and after the usual messing about it was running very well. Great to see the Jackdaw come back to life after 40 years. 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.