Cambrian Fun Fighters

[Nigel Heather]

I fancy something cheap)ish) and robust that resembles a warbird and I keep find myself looking at the Cambrian Fun Fighters.  From what I have seen they fly a little too fast but there is a good range (when they are in stock), reasonably cheap, and have a ‘wheels up’ look without the complexity and fragility of retracts.  But I also have a few questions

 

• Do they translate to electric power well.  I know they can be electric powered but they are old designs and I wonder whether they are best with IC but can be electric powered as a compromise
• With electric power, is it true that they break props on landing often
• Heard they are relatively heavy, one of the reasons why they fly and land fast - is this a problem with electric power, can they be lightened and if so is that a good idea
• What batteries, I have 3S 2200 and 4S 2800, would want to use one of those
• Out of the range are there any that stand out as being better or worse than the rest (although, often they are out of stock so it may be hobson’s choice

[Nigel R]

You can set a brake on the motor with some esc, this might allow you to predict the position which the prop stops. 

 

Define heavy, define fast, only you can say if you want a model like this. 

[leccyflyer]

Cambrian funfighters are great fun, I've recently retired two of mine as I do now have better options for the jobs they do, but I may well build a lighter Bf109e from the full sized plan. The original kits were designed for a .25 two stroke and had substantial ply fuselage doublers so could be a bit heavy. That said I originally flew my Spitfire and Bf109e with OS .25FP and Enya .25SS respectively and they flew very well.

 

Converting them both to electric was a real highlight for me at the time and fulfilled an ambition, back in the days of the first brushless outrunners - but still with NiCd for power.  They weighed in at 3lb 12oz for the Bf109e, with AXI 2820/10, APC-E 11x7" and 10x CP1700s. The Spitfire was 3lb 5oz with the same power train. That gave a wingloading of 26lb/sq ft -ish and so they did fly fast. They could be lightened by using lipos, with due consideration for balance point, but mine ultimately made the transition to the slope instead.

 

The Bf109e is the heaviest and has a slightly smaller wing, so really needed a very good blow to fly at all. The Spitfire was a quarter of a pound lighter and flew better. The star for the slope was the Spitfire that my pal Derek had built specifically for the slope, so was lighter again, missing those heavy ply doublers and flies really nicely on the slope. So, to answer one question yes they can be lightened and I think the electric option in the modern kits does build lighter. Ideally if you can get an AUW of 3lbs you'll get a great flyer.

 

Which batteries you would use depends on the choice of motor and prop, you can work around those batteries you mentioned and select an appropriate motor and prop to match. You will want something over 350w for fighter-like performance at those sort of weights.

 

I think you've asked the question about breaking props before. If you are really worried about it then seek out one of the orange JP bendy props. You won't break one of those. Mine were both fitted with APC-E props when they were electric and might have had the occaisional prop breakage, but nothing out of the ordinary. 

 

Out of the three Cambrian funfighters I have, I'd say the Spitfire is the better flyer, plus it's a Spitfire. Emils are nice, but you can't beat a Spitfire. 🙂

[Nigel Heather]

2 hours ago, Nigel R said:

You can set a brake on the motor with some esc, this might allow you to predict the position which the prop stops. 

 

Define heavy, define fast, only you can say if you want a model like this. 

Think the consensus is to have the brake off.  You cannot predict or control where the brake will happen so it can make things worse when the prop brakes somewhat vertically the motor resists movement when the prop hits the dirt = broken prop. Without the brake and in the same situation, there is a chance that the motor/prop will be pushed round to horizontal which will save the prop.

 

This is where the IC has an advantage, set the prop so it is horizontal when the engine starts to compress.  Cut the engine before landing and you can pretty much guarantee that the prop will be horizontal when the plane touches down.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Nigel Heather]

25 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

 

 

Converting them both to electric was a real highlight for me at the time and fulfilled an ambition, back in the days of the first brushless outrunners - but still with NiCd for power.  They weighed in at 3lb 12oz for the Bf109e, with AXI 2820/10, APC-E 11x7" and 10x CP1700s. The Spitfire was 3lb 5oz with the same power train. That gave a wingloading of 26lb/sq ft -ish and so they did fly fast. They could be lightened by using lipos, with due consideration for balance point, but mine ultimately made the transition to the slope instead.

Do you know if the modern Cambrian Fun Fighters are constructed any different or are they still the same original construction designed for IC?

 

And you mentioned alternatives, I’d be interested to know what they are - I’m aware of the Vintage Model Plane Company - they do a Spitfire and BF109 but I feel they look a little to boxy and ribby for my liking but maybe they look fine in the air.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Nigel Heather

[Chris Walby]

Why don't you go for a Cambria fun fighter, modern design, laser wood pack and known standard electric conversion. Details can be found on Facebook (Darren)

 

Guess it depends if you want traditional or modern take?

[leccyflyer]

8 minutes ago, Nigel Heather said:

Do you know if the modern Cambrian Fun Fighters are constructed any different or are they still the same original construction designed for IC?

 

And you mentioned alternatives, I’d be interested to know what they are - I’m aware of the Vintage Model Plane Company - they do a Spitfire and BF109 but I feel they look a little to boxy and ribby for my liking but maybe they look fine in the air.

My understanding is that the electric kits are redesigned for electric and presumably don;t need the 1/8th birch ply ndoublers up front. They should build lighter.

 

I converted mine to electric from IC about 20 years ago before lipos and they could definitely be made lighter nowadays.

 

The alternatives I mentioned were the Balsacraft Spitfire and Ripmax Spitfire, which are both designed specifically for electric and fly superbly. As I said at the field on Saturday though, IMO there's no finer flying funfighter sized Spitfire than the Parkzone Mk IX 1100mm foamie - a superb flying machine.

[Nigel Heather]

35 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

 

 

The alternatives I mentioned were the Balsacraft Spitfire and Ripmax Spitfire, which are both designed specifically for electric and fly superbly. As I said at the field on Saturday though, IMO there's no finer flying funfighter sized Spitfire than the Parkzone Mk IX 1100mm foamie - a superb flying machine.

Thanks will look into those - are those still in production or is it a case of looking out for second hand ones.

[Nigel Heather]

42 minutes ago, Chris Walby said:

Why don't you go for a Cambria fun fighter, modern design, laser wood pack and known standard electric conversion. Details can be found on Facebook (Darren)

 

Guess it depends if you want traditional or modern take?

I’m not sure what that means, sounds interesting though, when you say FaceBook which one do you mean, the Cambrian site?

[leccyflyer]

29 minutes ago, Nigel Heather said:

Thanks will look into those - are those still in production or is it a case of looking out for second hand ones.

The Ripmax and Balsacraft Spitfires are no longer in production, but do pop up on eBay regularly.

Another alternative, if you like building, is RBC's lovely Spitfire kit. 

https://www.rbckits.com/shop/spitfire-mkii.html

[David Hazell 1]

1 hour ago, Nigel Heather said:

I’m not sure what that means, sounds interesting though, when you say FaceBook which one do you mean, the Cambrian site?

 

Cambria, not CambriaN... Different planes.

 

Cambria are very much still in business. Their website is https://funfighters.co.uk/

 

They've just launched a new model - a BEDE5. Other than that they have: FW190, Spitfire, Mustang, Hein, ME109. All work with .25-.32 engines or leccy equivalent. Oh and Zero (for a .40 -  .46).

 

Cambria group on fb is here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1460474474245610

 

 

[Nigel Heather]

Thanks you have reminding me that there is Cambrian and Cambria - I did know that but it had completely slipped my mind.

[MattyB]

8 hours ago, Nigel Heather said:

Do you know if the modern Cambrian Fun Fighters are constructed any different or are they still the same original construction designed for IC?

 

And you mentioned alternatives, I’d be interested to know what they are - I’m aware of the Vintage Model Plane Company - they do a Spitfire and BF109 but I feel they look a little to boxy and ribby for my liking but maybe they look fine in the air.

 

I still haven't got round to finishing my VMC Spit yet (not sure why as it is only a few evening works really...), but if you just want an electric chuck around with no vices that is easy to hand launch I think they will fly a bit better than the Cambrians, and they will certainly build quicker (if you aren't me at least!). You can also "round them out" a bit with a bit of extra sheet or foam to make them a little more pleasing on the eye. 

[Graham Davies 3]

9 hours ago, Nigel Heather said:

Do you know if the modern Cambrian Fun Fighters are constructed any different or are they still the same original construction designed for IC?

Hi Nigel,

 

I built a CambriaN spitfire a year or so back. I can confirm that the construction is very much IC with adaptions for electric power. It's a decent model, but there are some points to note:

 

• It is in my opinion heavy. It uses lightply fuselage sides and lots of carved balsa. It means the rear half is a few ounces heavier than necessary, and this then requires lead to balance
• The electric conversion is pretty much a ply box fitted to F1. Don't worry about the weight; you need all you can get up front!
• There is very little room for ballast up front, and I needed 3+ ounces.
• Mine ate props like a starving man at an all you can eat buffet. 
• You can get decent performance on a 3536 1000kv motor, but don't expect long flights. However, you can make it look quite realistic with nice big loops and slow rolls
• You can use a folding prop. I carved up a standard spinner to retain the appearance. Performance and battery duration did suffer a bit, but it saved me a fortune!
• It flies well, despite the weight. As with any 'bird; if you take liberties with the elevator, it will stall...
• Tricky to hand launch solo as it needs a good bit of welly, and has a pronounced torque swing. I set up a flight mode to catch this for me, and held my breath.
• It would probably be great with a 25 glow motor...

I sold mine and then built my own version at the same scale. That was a load lighter and flew really well. However, I did enjoy the Cambrian and would do another. I'd probably replace the fuselage sides, and deviate from the plan a little to make space up front, and save weight behind the CofG.

 

 

 

Graham

[Nigel Heather]

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

 

I still haven't got round to finishing my VMC Spit yet (not sure why as it is only a few evening works really...), but if you just want an electric chuck around with no vices that is easy to hand launch I think they will fly a bit better than the Cambrians, and they will certainly build quicker (if you aren't me at least!). You can also "round them out" a bit with a bit of extra sheet or foam to make them a little more pleasing on the eye. 

 

must admit I’m torn.  I like the lightness of the VMC and can easily imagine it flying nicely and being better suited for electric power, but I find it hard to see past that ‘starved horse’ look.

 

On the Cambria and Cambrian, I like the look but am concerned that it is designed and constructed with an IC motor in mind.  I’ve looked at the difference between the Cambria and Cambrian and to be honest, I can’t see that much difference, it just looks like the two brother’s split and decided to sell the same model in their own way.  I do sense that there has been more recent development put into the Cambria version but it is quite minimal.

 

I’m almost tempted to build a 25 IC version - as this would address my concerns about the props but really, I’d prefer electric - cleaner, more reliable, and no cylinder head and exhaust hanging out of the cowling.

[Sheepish]

I’ve had two Spitfires both original Cambria models ones from back in the day powered with anything from an OS 25FP to an Irvine 36.  The 36 powered one went well but was a pig to hand launch due to the torque from the motor causing issues until it got some speed up.  One of these has a rudder too but it’s not essential.
I also have a Cambria Mustang built using a plan from an old Cambria kit, a canopy and a set of wings with an ASP28 which is a good match.

 

I also have the FW190 which I built from the Model Plans plans using a wing and canopy bought from Cambrian models.  
This one is electric powered and I hate to say it because I like ic models but this is the nicest to fly and easiest to launch of all of them.  In fact it’s the easiest hand launching plane I think I I’ve had after 3d foamies.

It has a motor and esc sourced from the bay of e which is a Surpass 3236-1020kv motor with a 10x6 electric towerpro prop and 3s 1800 LIPo power.  It’s the lightest of all of them I have built and the FW wing is a good size too which helps.  I covered it in hobby king grey film and then painted it to keep the weight down. I liked this one so much that when I had a receiver fail and it got broken I built another straight away, not something I do often.

 

[Graham Davies 3]

Nigel, if it helps I can talk you through the model I made after the Cambrian. The fuselage was loosely based on Ian Peacock's 42" spitfire funfighter plan. I think it's on Outerzone. The wing is a slightly scaled wing from Peter Miller's Harmony. I actually modified it to take retracts, but also added finger grips for hand launching. It's just about OK on the retracts on our rough strip, but it's nice to 'waggle the wheels' even if it's hand launched/ belly landed. This model came out a good pound lighter than the Cambrian, and never broke a prop. It now lives on in the hands of a clubmate.

[Colin Low 2]

Nigel,

I built a Cambrian 'Electrified' Bf109 and to my surprise it flies really really well..I have hand launched it myself, but it requires a really good throw if theres no wind - best to get a club mate to do this bit.

Construction is simple and agree with the comments above about the Ply fuselage doublers they could easily be replaced with something lighter or with big hoiles drilled in them. I also lightened all formers where I thought I could. Its got a 3S3300 which gives me long enough flights (8-10mins) - and balances with no additonal weight.  The construction guide could do with updating as the electric conversion bit is a bit adhoc! ... Tailwheel mentioned but not supplied. So far broken props have not been an issue with the brake off.

 

[Sheepish]

That 109 looks really good Colin, I’ve always fancied one of these and those pictures could well make me buy a kit.

 

Another plane to build to add to the list….

 

 

 

 

[Nigel Heather]

On 23/05/2023 at 07:43, Colin Low 2 said:

Nigel,

I built a Cambrian 'Electrified' Bf109 and to my surprise it flies really really well..I have hand launched it myself, but it requires a really good throw if theres no wind - best to get a club mate to do this bit.

Construction is simple and agree with the comments above about the Ply fuselage doublers they could easily be replaced with something lighter or with big hoiles drilled in them. I also lightened all formers where I thought I could. Its got a 3S3300 which gives me long enough flights (8-10mins) - and balances with no additonal weight.  The construction guide could do with updating as the electric conversion bit is a bit adhoc! ... Tailwheel mentioned but not supplied. So far broken props have not been an issue with the brake off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your Swiss Bf 109E is a work of art.

 

I have some questions if I may,

 

• What weight did it come out at?
• What did you cover it with?
• I have some 4S 2800 that I would like to use, do you think they would be okay?

 

[Colin Low 2]

5 hours ago, Nigel Heather said:

 

Your Swiss Bf 109E is a work of art.

 

I have some questions if I may,

 

• What weight did it come out at?
• What did you cover it with?
• I have some 4S 2800 that I would like to use, do you think they would be okay?

 

Nigel,

I'll have to weigh it again.

Its heavier than I expected but the same as Ic version if I remember. But this hasn't proved to be a problem, just makes it more stable in flight. Substational weight could be saved by modifying the ply fuselage doublers etc etc..

 

Covering wize.........

It actually fibre glassed, aerosol primer filler from Halfords and then airburshed using Vallejo 'model air' paints.

 

You could use a 4S just needs to be the correct motor/prop combination. Mine has a 4-max 3541- 1070 +12x6 prop. This motor can take 3s or 4s batteries, but you'd have to drop the prop to a 10x5 or simiar.

All my electrics were supplied by Georgte at 4-Max.

 

Colin

 

p.s. we also built a Spitfire on a 'hot' 4s setup, which was then recorded at 128mph at our club speed event.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Colin Low 2

[Wookman]

Another alternative might be the new character scale stuff from Stan at Phoenix Model Products. https://www.phoenixmp.com/acatalog/Character-Scale.html

There is a 109 and a P51 and he has a Spit just finished which should be available soon. Designed as electric around a 2200 3S, very stand off and squint scale but they catch the character nicely.

[Nigel Heather]

2 hours ago, Colin Low 2 said:

 

 

p.s. we also built a Spitfire on a 'hot' 4s setup, which was then recorded at 128mph at our club speed event.

 

Many thanks for the reply.

 

As for 'Hot' that is not what I'm looking for - actually one of my concerns because all the flight videos I have seen show the funfighters flying very fast.

[Nigel Heather]

2 hours ago, Wookman said:

Another alternative might be the new character scale stuff from Stan at Phoenix Model Products. https://www.phoenixmp.com/acatalog/Character-Scale.html

There is a 109 and a P51 and he has a Spit just finished which should be available soon. Designed as electric around a 2200 3S, very stand off and squint scale but they catch the character nicely.

 

Thanks, they look interesting - although not warbirds, I like the Tucano and Chipmunk.

[Andy Gates]

Nigel,

 

Not to sure that you will find a slow Warbird - it kind of goes against the grain a bit.

 

Having said that I am currently building a TN FW-190A which I am building light to see how good I can get it flying.

My aim is to halve the weight of Tony's machine which IIRC was around 8lbs.

I was aiming for end of May maiden but other things have got in the way, hopefully in a week or 2.

 

I can't imagine the Cambrian being a good start for a light weight machine as it uses block & substantial sheet for construction.

If you don't like the starved horse effect on the VMC machine, why not sheet the starved bits with 1/32" sheeting? Will not add too much weight.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Andy Gates