The Big Question ?

[Ron Gray]

16 minutes ago, Paul Johnson 4 said:

Problem is without a  large enough uptake,

There never is going to be if it’s just this forum providing the main punters. There are approximately 2800 BMFA members, how many are on this forum, 30 - 50? Yes if we all engage with our mates who aren’t on this forum then we could increase the numbers quite significantly and we do need to do that imo. However this will still be a very small number. Getting recognition via YouTube will raise awareness! Ditto an article in RCM&E (to a lesser extent).

Edited December 18, 2023 by Ron Gray

[Christopher Long 1]

45 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

There never is going to be if it’s just this forum providing the main punters. There are approximately 2800 BMFA members, how many are on this forum, 30 - 50? Yes if we all engage with our mates who aren’t on this forum then we could increase the numbers quite significantly and we do need to do that imo. However this will still be a very small number. Getting recognition via YouTube will raise awareness! Ditto an article in RCM&E (to a lesser extent).

Actually there are more than 28000 BMFA members - you missed an 0 off!

[RICHARD WILLS]

Oh..

[Paul Johnson 4]

2 hours ago, Ron Gray said:

Yes if we all engage with our mates......

MATES....Dobi here is still waiting Master Richard to give me a sock..

[Ron Gray]

1 hour ago, Christopher Long 1 said:

Actually there are more than 28000 BMFA members - you missed an 0 off!

I was projecting to the end of next year! But yes, you are correct and most remiss of me.

[Flyer]

Yay........ just got in from work and there's a big box delivered by carrier pigeon.     Thanks Richard  😁

[RICHARD WILLS]

2 hours ago, Flyer said:

Yay........ just got in from work and there's a big box delivered by carrier pigeon.     Thanks Richard  😁

Cant wait to see what you all get up to . Exciting from my point of view . Have a look at Erics build as he is well into it by now and his comment may save you time . 

Dave B also . 

[David Hazell 1]

I've received a box just a few minutes ago too. It's the right shape to be a model aeroplane kit. And it has Richard's name on it as the sender... It will be stuck under tree to open on Xmas day! I'll shunt it to the front of the queue though to be as concurrent as possible with the other mass builders on here...

 

[Ron Gray]

Meanwhile we're still at the faffing about stage. He says the lighting is not quite right

 

[martin collins 1]

At least he remembered to take the lens cap off..........

 

[Ron Gray]

Nah, it doesn’t have one!

[Lipo Man]

Without wishing to make any undue assumptions, but… assuming Santa does come up with the goods, would it be absolute madness to try to add flaps to the FW190?

It’ll (eventually) be my first model with retracts, and I was thinking I may as well go the whole hog and do flaps as well. I know the wing loading means it doesn’t really need them, but… 🤔

[Paul Johnson 4]

18 hours ago, Ron Gray said:

Meanwhile we're still at the faffing about stage. He says the lighting is not quite right

 

!!!Panto!!!...look beehind you..!!!!

[Ron Gray]

1 hour ago, Paul Johnson 4 said:

!!!Panto!!!...look beehind you..!!!!

Don’t say that, they’re helping him beehave (and I need all the help I can get)

[Ron Gray]

8 hours ago, Lipo Man said:

Without wishing to make any undue assumptions, but… assuming Santa does come up with the goods, would it be absolute madness to try to add flaps to the FW190?

It’ll (eventually) be my first model with retracts, and I was thinking I may as well go the whole hog and do flaps as well. I know the wing loading means it doesn’t really need them, but… 🤔

Not madness, no and fairly easy to do. However, as you have said they aren’t really necessary, in fact even my WR LA-7 doesn’t need them and that has a much higher wing loading.

 

I think we mustn’t lose sight of what this kit is supposed to be, a quick and simple way for us, and newbies, to construct a great flying model, with personalised finishing, that knocks the socks off the Far Eastern foamies.

 

Having said that, the choice is of course, yours and if you want flaps then fit them!

[Lipo Man]

1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:

Not madness, no and fairly easy to do. However, as you have said they aren’t really necessary, in fact even my WR LA-7 doesn’t need them and that has a much higher wing loading.

 

I think we mustn’t lose sight of what this kit is supposed to be, a quick and simple way for us, and newbies, to construct a great flying model, with personalised finishing, that knocks the socks off the Far Eastern foamies.

 

Having said that, the choice is of course, yours and if you want flaps then fit them!

Good advice, I think. As the retracts are already going to be an “add later” item I’ll build it without flaps but maybe add them later when I do the landing gear. Assuming Santa comes through. No idea what his plans are, but on an unrelated note my wife does seem to have a new male pen friend and took delivery of a large parcel yesterday. No idea what that’s all about. 

[Chris Walby]

I agree with Ron and would add great care should be taken NOT to add weight that will add little, but have a significant impact somewhere else (where you don't want it).

 

Richard has gone to great lengths to produce a light and easy to construct model and although UC or flaps could be added there is one thing for sure it will do...increase wing loading. This is likely to translate into:

• More tricky launch
• Higher stall speed
• More violent stall, as it might drop a wing on you
• Higher landing speed with increased likelihood of broken props and damage 

Only my advice, but build it as Richard designed it, fly the socks off it and then modify it if you wish...then you can always remember how good it was as original.

 

PS My BH FW190 has flaps that are never really needed

[RICHARD WILLS]

Its quite liberating not having to worry about retracts from a flying point of view . They do add extra pressure on landing without a doubt . 

When I started the Warbirds company in 1995 I was only an intermediate pilot and would make mistakes every week . I''d be in tree or through a wire fence etc . 

So my first version of this Fw190 was similar but more semi scale . I initially flew it with fixed undercarriage which meant it had hardwood support blocks sunk into the wing like a sport model and the wire undercarriage legs were attached with saddle clamps . 

As I got better at the take offs and landings , I realised that I couldn't stand seeing the "doughnut wheels" spoiling the lines of my lovely fighter . So I removed the front screws from the saddle clamps which allowed me to swing the clamps round like a catch and pull out the legs . 

From that point on, I spent a year whizzing around , with lots of low (very low) passes , and belly flop landings. 

The following year ,after all the club experts had told me that retracts were not feasible on a grass strip , I fitted some mechanical retracts and never looked back.

So I totally agree with Ron and Chris . Fly the hell out of the 190 for a season until you know it inside out , then I will show every one how to fit retracts with a bespoke pack . 

Flaps are another story . Some models , they suit , others can be made more tricky . The wing sections I use have been carefully chosen by development and experiment over 30 years and they do allow an enormous amount of leeway . Once you fly the 190 you will realise that they would be purely ornamental . 

Still , I'm glad you brought it up as , no doubt others were wondering . 

Interestingly , the two aeroplanes that really like to get a flap on are the two Messerschmitts . The 109 and the 110 . Their flaps are almost like bird feathers as they come in and both models come in on rails . The big twin is particularly fascination ,as it's almost on Auto Pilot . 

Horses for courses as they say !

[leccyflyer]

One of my greatest pleasures in flying the model aeroplanes that I enjoy the most comes from full flap and retract landings, which are a lovely delicate challenge of managing the sink rate with throttle and, done successfully, it's on a par with a perfect golf shot where you hear and feel the elusive perfect click. I enjoy those even more than any aerobatic manouvers or beating up the field. For my previously preferred 42" span "warbirds" flaps really didn't make sense and the wheel size for such models is such that ground handling can be tricky. For most of those, with a few exceptions, I'll take off on the wheels, retract and then belly land. That size of model it's more about the flying. The difference that just adding 100mm to the wingspan makes  is remarkable. The volume of the model increases significantly and flaps start to make sense, whilst the wheel size makes for better handling. Those slightly larger funfighters are currently my preferred size of model, for those reasons.

[leccyflyer]

My Big Brown Boxed Butcher Bird arrived with the postie yesterday and I had a quick peek, before it goes under the tree until Christmas Day. Will start yet another build thread once I make a start. Really looking forward to this one and it will christen my new, larger, workbench once the Sundeal deala reopens after the holidays.

[mightypeesh]

Apparently Santa has delivered something to my wife so I should stop worrying and wait for Christmas day to come! 🙂

[Mike T]

A few days ago I typed a huge screed re twins and lost the exsanguinating lot when the forum timed out on me before I pressed 'submit'.  I'm not going to do it again, so - quick and dirty:

• Sleek, simple twins are best because they have less complicated airframes (e.g. Mossie 'in', Black Widow 'out')  This still gives plenty of scope e.g. Whirlwind, Beaufighter/fort, Petlyakov PE2, Mitchell, Marauder, Hudson, DC3, etc.
• No u/c.  You can build a model large enough to have some 'presence' but is still easy to hand launch (either self or helper) and can belly land without incident.

and this is the biggie:

• capitalise on the widespread availability of (what I call) the 'standard' sport electric set up - 11 x 5-8" prop.  35XX 900-1200kv motor, 40/60 A ESC and 2200-3000 3S LiPo.  Pretty much everybody must have this kind of set up in their stash - at the lower end of the ranges I mention, it's the standard set up in the Wot 4 foam-e.  I've got several 🙂

The problem with most twins available today is that they are either too small (using Speed 480-size motors) or too large (using 55XX series motors and associated kit, which is an order of magnitude more expensive that the Wot 4 gear - TN's Mossie a case in point).

 

Designing around the Wot 4/Riot power train plays to people who already have the gear and results in a twin (or more...) worth building.

 

My 2c...

Edited December 21, 2023 by Mike T
sp.

[Graham Davies 3]

43 minutes ago, Mike T said:

A few days ago I typed a huge screed re twins and lost the exsanguinating lot when the forum timed out on me before I pressed 'submit'.  I'm not going to do it again, so - quick and dirty:

• Sleek, simple twins are best because they have less complicated airframes (e.g. Mossie 'in', Black Widow 'out')  This still gives plenty of scope e.g. Whirlwind, Beaufighter/fort, Petlyakov PE2, Mitchell, Marauder, Hudson, DC3, etc.
• No u/c.  You can build a model large enough to have some 'presence' but is still easy to hand launch (either self or helper) and can belly land without incident.

and this is the biggie:

• capitalise on the widespread availability of (what I call) the 'standard' sport electric set up - 11 x 5-8" prop.  35XX 900-1200kv motor, 40/60 A ESC and 2200-3000 3S LiPo.  Pretty much everybody must have this kind of set up in their stash - at the lower end of the ranges I mention, it's the standard set up in the Wot 4 foam-e.  I've got several 🙂

The problem with most twins available today is that they are either too small (using Speed 480-size motors) or too large (using 55XX series motors and associated kit, which is an order of magnitude more expensive that the Wot 4 gear - TN's Mossie a case in point).

 

Designing around the Wot 4/Riot power train plays to people who already have the gear and results in a twin (or more...) worth building.

 

My 2c...

Like this you mean?

 

60" span, fling and flop, 3536 1200kv motors turning 9x5 props on 2200 3S packs...

 

Graham

[Mike T]

That's it! 🙂

 

[Eric Robson]

Me110 56" span 3536 950kv 8x8 props 1 3s 3000 6min flight over 200 flights 1 broken prop not due to landing. 

Whirlwind, 58" span same set up 

Both made from depron and foam, could be made from balsa with foam veneer wings but everyone wants a Mosquito.