RAF's Finest Biplane? Hawker Fury MkI

[Martian]

Posted by Martyn K on 06/10/2017 16:35:34:

For a proper man sized 90FS sized IC engine, I think that I would want 6mm ply. I agree though for wimpy electric 4mm would be enough. Probably get away with 0.8mm balsa

somewhat harsh there Martyn

[Martyn K]

LOL Sorry about that.. My fingers got carried away..

 

BTW, I have got back my money from the misplaced Traplet order today.. Only took almost 3 months..

Edited By Martyn K on 06/10/2017 17:01:17

[Danny Fenton]

Mmm well done on the refund, still awaiting mine...... not sure what to say re wimpy electric.... LOL

[Richard Mallam.]

Thanks Danny. Am still not sure at the moment which way i'll go in terms of motor. If I go electric, I'll stick with the current laminated formers, but will use the thicker ply if I decide on IC.

My current preference is the latter - just like the noise!

Richard

[richard dalgleish]

Just came across this thread, thought I would share a couple of pictures of my Bryant Fury, built back in 2009.

Still flying today, Laser 120 for power. Would be nice to see a few more built.

Regards

Richard

[Jon H]

looks lovely but i bet its pretty monster with the 120 fitted. I would have expected an 80 to do the job

[richard dalgleish]

Funny enough John, no it's not. It's quite a draggy aircraft, with the wires, struts and radiator. The 120 is spot on for it,

[Martyn K]

That looks absolutely wonderful. I Would love to know how you keep that engine cool

Thanks

Martyn

[richard dalgleish]

Hi Martyn

I think there is just enough of the cylinder head hanging out in the breeze. Also the engine is bolted to a 6mm thk aluminium plate which is then bolted to the bearers, so I think the ali plate acts as a heat sink.

I do have a load of build pictures somewhere, if I can find them I will post a few. One thing to bear in mind is to make the metal wire tail skid quite substantial, mine has recently snapped off flush with the fuselage.

Regard

[Danny Fenton]

Hi Richard, if you wouldn't mind chipping in with some answers to questions I really would appreciate it.
For those that dont know Richard, he is a very skilful modeller with a great eye for detail.
I have been tracing the plan and there are a few areas that actually dont make sense!

Cheers
Danny

[Jon H]

Fair enough, how heavy did it end up?

Im just a little surprised as the 80 over powers my Hurricane of the same span and, i would assume, greater weight. 

Edited By Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 19/10/2017 13:40:20

[richard dalgleish]

Hi Danny - will be glad to help with any questions, it's funny because I was only looking at the plans last weekend, I'm toying with the idea of scaling it up to about 80" span (in the future!!)

I seem to remember an issue with the aileron's, bear in mind I built it in 2008/09 so a distant memory. I also did away with the top forward hatch, access is from the bottom wing opening.

Hi John - not sure on the weight, but she fly's very scale like on the 120. And sounds good too!!

Richard

[Martyn K]

I was toying with the idea of scaling it up to 1/5 scale (72" span) for an OS120FS with a prop extension shaft to get the Cylinder head as far back as possible. Not sure of that is such a good idea now if you think that a Laser120 is a good match

I'd like to get the engine properly buried if possible

Martyn

[Gordon Whitehead 1]

Hi Richard

The 120 snuggles down well inside the Fury's sleek nose. Have you fitted a propshaft extension? There's a special prop nut that comes with Lasers which looks as if it's for use with a spacer behind the prop and I'm wondering if you used that.

Lovely views of a lovely model too.

Gordon

[Gordon Whitehead 1]

Martyn

Unless you already have the OS, go on the laser website ( Laserengines.com ), download the dimensioned drawings. Then you'l be able to see how the OS is 23mm, almost an inch, taller than the Laser from crankshaft axis to the top of the valve cover. The rear valvegear of the Laser also contributes to it being much more "streamlined" than any of the front valvegear engines.

If you're serious about scaling up the plan, have a look at my Laser 155.

Gordon

[richard dalgleish]

Hi Gordon

The 120 does fit nice, I didn't use any special adaptor. The spinner was custom made for me by a machining friend, it cost me £50, every time we see each other he reminds me it should of been nearer to a £100. It was machined out of solid 4" aluminum bar. I'm not sure you can get a commercially made one due to the shape.

Martyn - at 60" it has quite a good presence in the air and the 120 makes a good combo.

Richard

[Martyn K]

Thanks Gordon

Yes, I already have an OS120FS Surpass III sat idle. It is rather a tall (and heavy) engine. I was quite impressed how well Richard had buried that engine in the nose.

I'll have a look at the Laser website as well.

Martyn

[Gordon Whitehead 1]

Another question Richard.

I've superimposed the side view of the Laser 120 over a 1/6th size Fury side view in CAD, and am now wondering what you did about fuel tank position relative to the Laser carb. Presumably the engine runs a treat, and it'd be helpful to know what make and size of tank you use in the model.

Gordon

[richard dalgleish]

Hi Gordon

From memory the tank is low down and slides in from the lower wing opening, so no problem with the carb. I can't remember where the plan shows the tank?.

I usually use Dubro tanks, and I think I used a 12oz one.

And yes the engine runs a treat, as you would expect from a Laser,

Richard

[Jon H]

While i am not doubting what Richard has said i am very surprised he deems the 120 adequate and not overpowered. There is a video online of the considerably larger/heavier/draggier Precedent Stampe flying about quite happily on our 120 and i have seen 80'' moths and the like flown with our 100. I also flew an 80'' Mick Reeves Hurricane with our 120 without issue. The 72'' seagull Gypsy Moth is also really good with our 80 fitted. I dont want to get too bogged down with the how and why (although i am curious about the prop used and top end rpm), but i still think an 80 or 90 would be more than sufficient, especially when the model was probably flown on a merco 61 or something when designed and any modern engine of half that capacity would probably be more powerful.

[Martyn K]

Indeed, the original was flown on a Merco 61 which was the standard power plant 40 years ago.

I guess that is what the throttle control is for, we have no real idea just how Dennis B would have flown the prototype but I guess that it would have been at the top end of the throttle stick.

Martyn

[Jon H]

I was astonished to see 40-60 on the stampe box too, i guess its all they had!

[Gordon Whitehead 1]

Hi Richard

Dennis' tank position is just indicated by a hole in F3! This looks to locate the tank so that in horizontal flight the carb spraybar is about 2/3 the way up the tank. Playing in CAD with the Dubro dimensions on the 1/6th drawing with the 120, it looks as if the spraybar on your 120 would be just lower than halfway up the tank with the fuz horizontal. So it sounds as if the 120 isn't critical on tank location. Happily, with the model on the ground it's stance is so nose-up that the likelihood of fuel syphoning out of a full tank through the carb whilst at rest should be slight.

Thanks again for the information, Richard. I'm not thinking about doing a Fury, but there are a couple of other golden age RAF silver bipes I'd like to do some day and all info is useful.

Gordon

[richard dalgleish]

Have been doing some digging on the computer, if anyone needs a drawing of the spinner I made i have my AutoCAD drawing still. The tolerances may need tweaking but the basis is there.

Regards, Richard

[Nev]

That’s a lovely looking Fury Richard, bet your proud of that one.

Don’t know how successful it will be but I’m going to have a go at 3D printing a spinner, so the dimension drawing is very useful, thanks. Mine will be electric so won’t have the same stresses as yours, if it balances ok.

It will give me something to do until the build gets underway, I’ll let you know how I get on.

Nev.