The Big Question ?

[Piers Bowlan]

2 hours ago, Geoff Gardiner said:

It's the 72inch Tony Nijhuis Mosquito.

 

I built it a few years ago now and it turned out a bit heavy.

 

It is currently in bits on a shelf, after a nasty tipstall incident.

According to his website, the Tony Nijhuis 72in Mosquito weighs 14lbs and has a wing loading of 40oz/squ ft. 
Tapered wings and a high wing loading is not a combination made in heaven. ☠️

[Eric Robson]

5 minutes ago, Piers Bowlan said:

According to his website, the Tony Nijhuis 72in Mosquito weighs 14lbs and has a wing loading of 40oz/squ ft. 
Tapered wings and a high wing loading is not a combination made in heaven. ☠️

That's  why I made mine from depron and foamboard same size less than half the weight. At present uses 2 3s 3000.  It would be better about 60" with a single battery. I tend to fly the 110 more as it is one piece, twice as many flights with the same batteries and I can hand launch it myself. Now I have the dolly I will see how the Mosquito goes from that.

[Lipo Man]

26 minutes ago, Eric Robson said:

That's  why I made mine from depron and foamboard same size less than half the weight. At present uses 2 3s 3000.  It would be better about 60" with a single battery. I tend to fly the 110 more as it is one piece, twice as many flights with the same batteries and I can hand launch it myself. Now I have the dolly I will see how the Mosquito goes from that.

What type of foamboard did you use? The Hobbycraft stuff or something more exotic?

[Eric Robson]

15 minutes ago, Lipo Man said:

What type of foamboard did you use? The Hobbycraft stuff or something more exotic?

The lower wing sheet is Hobbycraft foamboard and the top sheet is Maker foam board as it is easier to form.

[leccyflyer]

2 hours ago, Piers Bowlan said:

According to his website, the Tony Nijhuis 72in Mosquito weighs 14lbs and has a wing loading of 40oz/squ ft. 
Tapered wings and a high wing loading is not a combination made in heaven. ☠️

Yep, agreed - nice, but just a bit too big, too heavy and too heavily loaded for my flying fields. I think the 60-odd inch size that Eric is talking about would be the sweet spot for me, for a Mossie. So much so that I managed to resist a 73" span CMPro one that went to auction on eBay at the weekend and went for a song. Didn't look half as nice as Eric's one there though - the CMPro one has quite a portly fuselage and there is something about the nacelles too.

[Eric Robson]

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

Yep, agreed - nice, but just a bit too big, too heavy and too heavily loaded for my flying fields. I think the 60-odd inch size that Eric is talking about would be the sweet spot for me, for a Mossie. So much so that I managed to resist a 73" span CMPro one that went to auction on eBay at the weekend and went for a song. Didn't look half as nice as Eric's one there though - the CMPro one has quite a portly fuselage and there is something about the nacelles too.

Just looked up the CMPro Mosquito on YouTube and it looks too short making the fuselage look porky, the nacelles look oversize probably to accommodate the motors fuel tank and retracts. Mine are wrong too the front lower cowls are Spitfire. 

[Eric Robson]

Not a Tempest but an interesting paint scheme for a Typhoon. This one is painted to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D Day 

[RICHARD WILLS]

Should have been coded O😉MG  

 

Must be handy having those trays either side of the cockpit ,

I guess for tea and biscuits etc ?

Edited Wednesday at 19:32 by RICHARD WILLS

[Eric Robson]

There is a 96"span Dc3 balsa  build  on the forum. Robin Fowler design, the specification is just over 9 lb two 3s 4000 batteries , inexpensive small motors. And it's fitted with retracts. It can be done.

[GrumpyGnome]

I suspect it's not very....... robust

[Andy Gates]

GG

 

If you build light, then you do not need to fly so fast so the energy taken into any mishap is very much reduced allowing for a less beefy construction.

 

KE = 1/2 m v2 (2 is squared - I could not find the superscript function)

 

My Mossie which is now 17 years old and still flies regularly. 74" wingspan and weighed around 5lbs including batteries, (2 x 3S 2800mAH). As Richard would say, more "cartoon scale" but great fun and shows no sign of tip stalling.

Edited Wednesday at 20:57 by Andy Gates
missing picture

[GrumpyGnome]

I understand that but the DC3 in question is significantly bigger, and the thread mentions fatigue in the fuselage area - from general use I believe.

 

I expect my models be flyable 12 months a year, and not have to leave them at home if the ground is  too hard, too soft, or has too many worm casts. So I like a little robustness 🙂

[Eric Robson]

Hi, GG,

The stress cracks mentioned were regarding a Percival Prentis by the same designer caused by a heavy landing. The  method of separating the fuselage is not the way I would be happy with as it is at a point where a 3 point heavy landing would create a lot of stress but Robin Fowler favours it and it seems to work for him.

Early Fw  Condors were prone to go at that point. 

Edited Wednesday at 21:45 by Eric Robson
Added text

[RICHARD WILLS]

49 minutes ago, Andy Gates said:

GG

 

If you build light, then you do not need to fly so fast so the energy taken into any mishap is very much reduced allowing for a less beefy construction.

 

KE = 1/2 m v2 (2 is squared - I could not find the superscript function)

 

My Mossie which is now 17 years old and still flies regularly. 74" wingspan and weighed around 5lbs including batteries, (2 x 3S 2800mAH). As Richard would say, more "cartoon scale" but great fun and shows no sign of tip stalling.

Andy and I use to fly together at Rivenhall in Essex . So I got to fly some of his models including the Mossie and his very light Chipmunk . 

The designs are by Ivan Pettigrew and are a bit like the old kiel Kraft stringers and tissue style of construction . Probably a bit too semi scale as Andy says , but amazingly easy to fly when you compare it with the more typical 14lb 72" Mossie . 

You certainly felt comfortable flying it with every confidence of bringing it home in pristine condition . 

Going a little more scale will be the answer . But it shows what can be done . The landing speeds were trainer like , so quite modest retracts would suffice . 

Have a look at his plan as his method of undercarriage was unusual but clever . 

Thanks Andy . 

[Wihtgar]

We had those on the NDN Firecracker. Don't remember what effect they had though.

 

Nige

[Ron Gray]

29 minutes ago, Piers Bowlan said:

Not too sure what this has to do with ‘The Big Question’ though

Quite, it really needs its own Topic - A Big Question.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posts moved. Here

 

[Ron Gray]

Thanks John.