RCM&E Peter Miller's Ballerina

[Steve Goodwin]

Hi all, can anyone supply me a scanned copy of the RCM&E issue featuring the above mentioned model, just the relevant pages not the entire mag.

Or do you have a hard copy for sale?

Can you buy back issues, if so do you know the number / date of publication?

As this will be my first build I'm collating as much information as I can, I have every build blog from here saved too!

Thank you in advance. Happy to cover costs etc...

[kevin b]

No problem Steve.

 

Ballerina RCM&E December 2015.

 

Copy of magazine here.

RCM&E December 2015

[kc]

Buying the magazine even at that price (they are usually cheaper) is still a cheap way to get the plan if it's still there.    I think Sarik Hobbies can supply the article with the plan, so ask if you are buying the plan from them.

Quite often the plan build article is on the 'Feature' section of Modelflying, but not for the Ballerina it seems.   The original thread by Peter is here though and his build methods are very similar in many recent designs so you could also refer to any of his recent designs for construction info.

I also ( modestly ) suggest you look at my Prima Ballerina modifications and see if they are any help to you if you are converting to electric.  Also my hatch catch idea might be of interest too.

Edited August 13, 2021 by kc

[Steve Goodwin]

2 hours ago, kc said:

Buying the magazine even at that price (they are usually cheaper) is still a cheap way to get the plan if it's still there.    I think Sarik Hobbies can supply the article with the plan, so ask if you are buying the plan from them.

Quite often the plan build article is on the 'Feature' section of Modelflying, but not for the Ballerina it seems.   The original thread by Peter is here though and his build methods are very similar in many recent designs so you could also refer to any of his recent designs for construction info.

I also ( modestly ) suggest you look at my Prima Ballerina modifications and see if they are any help to you if you are converting to electric.  Also my hatch catch idea might be of interest too.

Indeed kc, your hatch and retainer idea is very neat, read the entire blog, very interesting

[i12fly]

I still have the original article from the magazine so if you would like a scan of it send me a PM with your email address and I can scan it and send it.

[kc]

Glad you found that interesting.  It is quite different to most of the electric versions made by others - they mostly left the engine bulkhead in the same place as the i.c versions and used all sorts of stand offs to mount the electric motor.   You might look at BEB's comments and calculations on this - he didn't really agree with me!

[Steve Goodwin]

20 minutes ago, i12fly said:

I still have the original article from the magazine so if you would like a scan of it send me a PM with your email address and I can scan it and send it.

Thank you for your kind offer, Kevin has sorted me out ?

[EarlyBird]

14 minutes ago, kc said:

Glad you found that interesting.  It is quite different to most of the electric versions made by others - they mostly left the engine bulkhead in the same place as the i.c versions and used all sorts of stand offs to mount the electric motor.   You might look at BEB's comments and calculations on this - he didn't really agree with me!

I agree move F1 forward and mount the motor directly to it, this really helps with the CofG, I did no do it on this one (my first) but have on subsequent conversions following KC's advice BTW.

[Steve Goodwin]

Thanks for the advice much appreciated, so am I correct in thinking that F1 will effectively create a doubler with the motor mount when moved all the way forward?

[kc]

Steve,  I am guessing you are looking at my own drawings as shown in the Prima Ballerina thread?  If so the 1/32 ply doubler goes all the way along to the new position of F1 and the joint should be reinforced with the usual triangular balsa or preferably hardwood.  ( note it's not actually right angles - triangle needs to be sanded to fit )   That means the original F1 is not used.   If built to my drawings the nose has a long shallow taper rather than the more curved cowl that Peter has drawn.   It's easier to make a hatch to match a straight taper than a curved cowl!

[Peter Miller]

I converted mine to electric but just used stand offs. It needed abo 6 ounces of lead in the nose

 

Graham 3 has it now, can't remember what motor he used.

[Graham Davies 3]

12 minutes ago, Peter Miller said:

I converted mine to electric but just used stand offs. It needed abo 6 ounces of lead in the nose

 

Graham 3 has it now, can't remember what motor he used.

I have a 4250 800kv spinning a 12x6. I use 4S 3300 packs and get 7 minutes comfortably. Incidentally, I have taken all the lead out, and actually added a little to the tail! This model is one of my favourites; I love it.

 

For information, the 'Richard Wills' electric conversion is to leave F1 where it is and cut a square hole in it big enough to take a lightply 'coffin' that can carry your battery. On the front of this, glue a 1/8" ply plate and mount your motor to this. You can then slide this back and forward until you get the perfect spinner gap and glue it in place. This works well because your battery can go as far forward as the back of the motor. I use this for my warbirds and you get perfect spinner gaps and easy access to the motor.

 

Graham

[Peter Miller]

That is a heck of a lot bigger motor than I used. It is even bigger than the motor I fitted into Destiny and that is a bigger, heavier model than Ballerina

I used a 3541 1070 and a three cell battery but it could have done with a bit more to bring it back up to the original OS 40 Surpass performance  but then I was using a motor removed from another of my models.

[Graham Davies 3]

It explains the lack of lead! 

 

I think these are two ways to skin the same pudding (I'm not allowed to use animal based metaphors!). We both used what we had to hand. The 4250 motors are what I use in my 55" warbirds that come in around 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 lbs. I think the Ballerina is under 5lbs if I remember correctly. It has 'enough' with this motor, but is not over-powered. One and a half vertical rolls is about it, which for me is ideal.

 

Looking at the relative specs a 4250 is around 200g, a 3541 around 125g. With the extra cell on the battery, that accounts for the 6 Oz difference and associated nose weight. 

 

Both seem to work though, so we have a 3S and 4S solution for the same model.

 

Steve, whichever you go with (and I'd always recomend following Peters and George's advice!), you won't go far wrong. It's a fabulous model.

 

Graham

 

[Peter Miller]

Don't follow my advice in this case.  I was just using what I had and in my case Ballerina was a bit down on power by my standards.

 

I always ask George what power I need

 

These days most of my models are about the same weight and size so I can use what I have or know to match the size and weight of the model.

 

And with electric power the propeller has a far larger effect than with an ic. powered model.

[Steve Goodwin]

Interesting, I suppose it’s them same kind of conversation one would have regarding traditional glow engine choices. I have a lot of 3s batteries so that could be good, but I don’t want an underpowered model, having said that I fly pretty much scale all the time anyway, I just love the low and slow!

[Peter Miller]

Glow engines are much simpler.  The capacity is the basic governing factor. Of course there are significant variations say between cross flow and Schnuerle porting and various intake systems. But again the propeller will be within a reasonable range.

 

Take you average front induction two stroke .40.  The prop range will be between 10" X 6 and 11 X 6 for a normal sports aerobatic model. One might go up to 12" diameter. and we all have a pretty good idea of the size of model we would use a .40 in.

 

With electric we have the size and then the KV and the prop can vary dramatically with the size and the Kv.  Which is why I ask George

 

[kc]

'George'  is 4Max and he has a website with suggested motors for several designers - the Peter Miller section is here

Adverts in RCME with lists of useful items too.

 

[Steve Goodwin]

So the (Ballerina) kit has arrived, although I’ve not had a chance to check it over as I’m currently working in Yorkshire, what size of servo should I use, the list is almost endless, I do not want to go cheep. 

[EarlyBird]

4-Max

Edited August 22, 2021 by EarlyBird

[Peter Miller]

That should be fine but you will need to modify the model to take two servos in the wings as Per The Ohmen.

[EarlyBird]

12 hours ago, Peter Miller said:

That should be fine but you will need to modify the model to take two servos in the wings as Per The Ohmen.

Oh yes. Also the holes in the ribs are designed for piano wire and need enlarging to take the paper tube for the servo wire. Again as per the Ohmen.

 

 

Steve when you say kit is this from Sarik?

If so on mine I had to buy 1/8 ply and light ply for the undercarriage mounts and aileron control horn mounting plates but if you know any prodigious plan builders they will have scrap boxes with loads of suitable pieces, just to keep you going.

 

I am sure this is not everything but as you progress memories will be jogged and help will be forthcoming.

 

Would it be an idea to turn this into a build topic in the Peter Miller Plan Builders Forum?

 

[Steve Goodwin]

Hi EB

Yes from Sarik Hobbies, I must admit I was think about asking those that built the Ballerina from either the original or the current plan, recommendations / things to be aware of, I note in one blog Peter was quite dissatisfied with the plan reproduction. Thanks for your comment 

[Peter Miller]

Steve

I have just sent you my original plans as PDF files to your info at Jerry hanson address

 

Peter

[kc]

I am not aware of any changes from the free plan to the plan as sold by Sarik currently.   I could be wrong!

My recollection is that the items on the published plan that were not the same as the original hand drawn plan ( Peter kindly provided me with a full size photocopy at the time ) were mainly the position of the dowel in wing and in F2.   The pullout plan showed this perilously close to the bottom of F2 - this needs to be changed and the dowel fitted into R1 somewhat higher with F2 hole being drilled higher too.  ( or adding a reinforcing piece to F2 instead )    As you would expect Peter's original drawing was correct and the ( unknown! ) draughtsman got this wrong!    If your cut parts have this wrong too then let us know and a remedy will no doubt be suggested.  ( show us a photo )

Peter's normal method is to draw the dowel hole slightly high to allow for filing down to correct position at final fitting and achieve perfect fit.  It works.

 The other slight draughtsman's  'error's ' were the holes for the 'snakes' in bulkheads F6 to F10 and this was because the servo positions were slightly changed and therefore the line of the snake altered very slightly.   I replotted the position of these holes on my copy of the pull out plan and I see that the positions changed mostly just by a millimetre or so and a maximum of about 3mm on F 6 and F7 ( to the right and upwards)    Nothing to worry about a slight bit of filing or scalpel work on the balsa ones will adjust these if the Sarik lasercut are the same as the plan. The plan shows holes about 3mm dia but most snakes are a bit larger dia - before assembly make sure your chosen snakes fit the holes easily.    The liteply F6 is slightly harder stuff and probably worth filing the holes out before installing - just file to 3mm to right and 1mm higher up and ensure the dia fits snakes.

 

So absolutely nothing to worry about - just start building and ask if you encounter problems.

 

I see that Peter has sent you a pdf plan - compare that to the pullout plan around the wing dowel on the side view - you will see what I mean.   Just needs a bit more 'meat' in F2 which a higher dowel positon will allow.