The Big Question ?

[gillyg1]

" Don't just stand there -- get one up" on again ITV 4 , 16:30 🤔

" Messerschimitts"

[Futura57]

59 minutes ago, gillyg1 said:

" Don't just stand there -- get one up" on again ITV 4 , 16:30 🤔

" Messerschimitts"

 

No they ain't,  they're Heinkels 🤣

 

Who the hell's he trying to kid.

 

You can teach a monkey to land better than that

 

Good afternoon, my a*s. Come on, put yer hands up 🤪 (sanitised version)

 

I love it

 

 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Futura57

[David Holland 2]

This is another of those N+1 questions, isn't it? How many times do you need to watch BoB?

[RICHARD WILLS]

Should be on the school curriculum . It reminded me of a chap I met while working in the East End . He owned a Green Grocers and was a big , tough cockney . 

But he told me that, as his previous job had been a crane operator on the docks , the BOB film producers asked him to crane Edward Fox into a green house . 

"Thanks awfully old chap " said the actor to a little boy offering a cigarette.

But , although I didnt twig it at the time , I was suspicious that he wasnt also the farmer who when confronted with a parachuting Pole, who politely said "good afternoon " 

To which he replied "Good Afternoon my Arsxx" They were always doing cheap shortcuts , so why not use someone already there ?

Beckton gas Holders were targeted during the battle as was Fords and Dagenite Batteries (my Dad was manager there ) . It was all easy to spot as you fly  up the river. 

In the 90s the whole of Canning town and silver town which are between Dagenham and the City became something like a waste land . So much bomb damage and pretty undesirable . Tate and Lyle had a big plant there , but that was it . 

Sorry to digress , but I do think the BOB film is very relevant to those that follow my threads . Its almost another history in itself . 

During the making of the film we had a Heinkel come right over our school very low plus actual dogfights up and down the Rainham Marshes pretty much where the QE2 bridge now is . For a 10 year old boy it was magic !

 

[Futura57]

The bravery of our pilots chokes me up every time I watch B of B. I wonder what they would think of the country now that they saved. 😪

 

I salute them.

 

Edited December 31, 2024 by Futura57

[payneib]

I'm not entirely sure what this is, but can we add it to the WR wishlist?

[GrumpyGnome]

Must be from the drug-enhanced brains of Blohm & Voss.........

[Chris Walby]

11 hours ago, payneib said:

I'm not entirely sure what this is, but can we add it to the WR wishlist?

Looks a great candidate to be bottom of the list!

Could it be any less well known, difficult to design, build and probably fly + expense 🤣

 

Unless anyone can find anything more obscure?

[leccyflyer]

Please don't...

[Paul Johnson 4]

Should anyone request a Wildcat.....

I am not modelling that!

[Eric Robson]

They are great for belly landings

[RICHARD WILLS]

Ive seen golf trolleys that fold up like that . Just need to find one for a pixie .

[Eric Robson]

1 hour ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

Ive seen golf trolleys that fold up like that . Just need to find one for a pixie .

Definitely not for a Fairey!

[leccyflyer]

1 hour ago, Eric Robson said:

They are great for belly landings

Agreed - the Wildcat has a braw big belly and the Parkzone one has a hard blister, specifically for belly landings. Mine always seems to turn at 90 degrees at the end of the slide, just about every time.

 

 

[RICHARD WILLS]

Hello Chaps . Its been fun watching the Fw190s and Tempests come to life . Please keep posting the pictures as you finish a build as I really enjoy seeing the variations and the smiling faces . Makes it all worth it . 

Now , I like to look after our gang , as you know . So I have a worrying niggle that we can all help with . 

I have been labouring over the new Mosquito kit which is quite a challenge . The prototype was made mostly from foam board but the kit will be all wood . 

So as you can imagine , making a wooden kit weigh the same as a foam board kit requires some pretty fine scrutiny . In fact I have been counting every gram. 

The big issue here is not in fact a magazine sold on the high street , but an entirely different problem for us as WW2 fans . 

WW2 aircraft had whopping great power plants up the front and Coca Cola can, thin skins at the rear to make the thing balance . 

We have something the size of cotton reel at the front and if we replicated the full size, our rear end would have all of the structural integrity of an empty crisp packet to make it balance . 

In some models there is plenty of leeway and they will carry the extra ballast if we get it wrong . The Tempest is a fine example . 

However , the Mosquito is not . Check out you tube for anyone flying an overweight Mossie and you will need a stiff drink . 

So assuming that my carefully monitored prototype wooden kit balances without lead , it is pretty much vital that you can all follow me to with in a few ounces . 

Now this is where we can all help . 

Between us we have all made some 190s and Tempests . We all had the same kits (I dont get a special "race prepared hand picked version " ) .

I will give you the weights of mine . 

Fw190 Fuz  1169g  Wing 708g  Battery 3300 @ 360g   Total AUW with retracts 2237g

Tempest  Fuz 1252  Wing 953g  Battery 3300@360g   Total AUW with retracts 2565g  (incudes 3oz lead)  say 75g

 

We are not sending people to the naughty step or trying to show them up , we are hopefully looking for the little differences that will save adding ballast and increasing the stalling speed . Lets face it , this is a very good controlled experiment because we all used the same finish technique and paint . 

Note that both of mine are "full house " with retracts . 

I'm pretty certain that any difference there is in the models is occurring rear of the trailing edge . Simply because of the long moment arm on WW2 aircraft . So lets zoom in on the tail , the rear fuz , paint application , amount of fuselage rounding (loses wood , but what does that weigh ?) etc . Tail wheels ? Push rods ? 

We cant rule out the fact that some balsa tail planes may be heavier than others as that is a factor of wood . 

If we can all learn something and close the "weight spread range " , we will all benefit in the future . 

Generally the back end of our models are over engineered . Ive never seen one back into a crash .........

All comments welcome chaps . Lets keep it constructive and helpful so that those that tend to build heavy can be pulled up the ladder a bit . 

Tricks and tips from the front runners very helpful too.

[Glenn Philbrick]

Hi Richard.

 

Thanks for the thoughts on the Mossie kit. Does that mean that it's getting near to completion? 

I built the Brian Taylor Mossie with a pair of OS70 unfortunately it met its end after one engine cut following a low pass! Hopefully this is not likely to occur with an electric set up. My bench is cleared ready for action.

 

[Chris Walby]

If you take into account my rubbish building as my Tempest AUW is 3kg the I am doomed, doomed I say! Although the airframe takes the extra weight a treat, but back to the Mossie

 

Option 1 Build the tail and rear fuselage as light as possible, even if we all need to learn a new technique with foam instead of balsa or a mix of both A very minimal tail wheel and perhaps the stick n rod push rods to keep the weight down. A point to note is that except my PZ Mossie all the others have come out tail heavy which is corrected by brass spinner nuts, over size motors, ESC's in nacelles and servos in front of C of G  (SG Mossie, BH Mossie and Power Max Mossie

 

Option 2 do as much as you can and then add useful weight as far forward as possible, e.g. BH Mossie has a 4S5000 as far forward as possible in the fuselage, yes I know it creates other issues as to where the mass is, but any beefing up is in front of the C of G so not all bad

 

Option 3 Built the rear end ultra light and issue a stern warning. I had one and still have another Extra Slim Twin (very thick wing) that clearly states not to power dive the model. We can all guess what will happen if the warning is ignored. Just say the recommended power set up is X if this is exceeded then structural failure will occur.

 

..Should have gone for a Moskito....shorter in the tail + long nacelles and C of G came out forward and needed weight in the tail! 

 

PS Artistic licence and make the tail a smidge shorter and the nacelles slightly longer (they did in fact lengthen the nacelles on the full size).

Edited February 10 by Chris Walby

[RICHARD WILLS]

1 hour ago, Chris Walby said:

If you take into account my rubbish building as my Tempest AUW is 3kg the I am doomed, doomed I say! Although the airframe takes the extra weight a treat, but back to the Mossie

 

Option 1 Build the tail and rear fuselage as light as possible, even if we all need to learn a new technique with foam instead of balsa or a mix of both A very minimal tail wheel and perhaps the stick n rod push rods to keep the weight down. A point to note is that except my PZ Mossie all the others have come out tail heavy which is corrected by brass spinner nuts, over size motors, ESC's in nacelles and servos in front of C of G  (SG Mossie, BH Mossie and Power Max Mossie

 

Option 2 do as much as you can and then add useful weight as far forward as possible, e.g. BH Mossie has a 4S5000 as far forward as possible in the fuselage, yes I know it creates other issues as to where the mass is, but any beefing up is in front of the C of G so not all bad

 

Option 3 Built the rear end ultra light and issue a stern warning. I had one and still have another Extra Slim Twin (very thick wing) that clearly states not to power dive the model. We can all guess what will happen if the warning is ignored. Just say the recommended power set up is X if this is exceeded then structural failure will occur.

 

..Should have gone for a Moskito....shorter in the tail + long nacelles and C of G came out forward and needed weight in the tail! 

 

PS Artistic licence and make the tail a smidge shorter and the nacelles slightly longer (they did in fact lengthen the nacelles on the full size).

Chris , its not rubbish building . But it is an opportunity to find out how the extra weight appeared . Its not voodoo and Im not Albus Dumbledore , so it must be easy to follow the same format that I set out and make a light model . But to make progress, in order that  everyone can improve, then the deviations from the "path of righteousness" need to be identified (Amen ), says the Reverend Sweep . 

[RICHARD WILLS]

You'd look angry if somebody had stuck a pin in your wrist ........

[Chris Walby]

I'll have a think on what I did with the Tempest as the additional weight in the tail just compounded the additional lead needed at the other end. My other excuse is that I use 4S4000 packs and they are light for their respective capacity (possibly lighter than a 4S3300). Others deviated from design by using a brick of a battery and modifying the battery tray to get it further forward (win/win).

 

Only thing mine had that was not std was a tail wheel as I went straight for retracts. It was depleted uranium based paint wasn't it?

 

I thought the Rev Sweep looks very calm  compared with "normal" 🤣

 

 

[payneib]

3 hours ago, Chris Walby said:

If you take into account my rubbish building as my Tempest AUW is 3kg the I am doomed, doomed I say! 

 Pfffffffff. Bet I could squeeze a few more kgs in to that airframe without even trying. 😂

[Chris Walby]

5 minutes ago, payneib said:

 Pfffffffff. Bet I could squeeze a few more kgs in to that airframe without even trying. 😂

But we are not talking about adding weight, the question was about building in lightness and how to prevent the Mossie ending up a flying manhole cover.

 

Suggestions?

[Ron Gray]

It would be an interesting exercise to see what the volume of balsa is in the tail feathers then compare the weight of that to the weight of an equivalent volume of Depron mainly because Depron is about ¼ the density of medium balsa (35Kg/m3 vs 120Kg/m3).

Edited February 10 by Ron Gray

[RICHARD WILLS]

Well Ron , Ive just made the whole back end of the Mossie in Balsa and it weighs only one ounce more than the foam board back end . 

On production models we want to stick with wood if possible . It is more "acceptable " in general and ages much better .  

As we all know , it is the usual story of 1oz on the tail needs 4 oz up front to balance . So when people say that they had to add 10oz in the cowl and we all reel back in horror , it may have been caused by just 2-3oz at the tail . (Sorry that I went imperial there ) 

So lets start from the back . 

On my designs , there is always a central crutch. This is just an alignment tool is not actually needed to fly and maintain the model . Feel free to hack as much away as you like from the cockpit to the tail post . I purposely didnt do that on the prototype 190 and Tempest so that you could all emulate my model straight from the box.

The next thing to look at is the amount of wood sanded or carved away at the rear . The Tempest and Spitfire kits have large triangular sections in the lower fuselage so that they can be radically sanded to an oval shape . The more wood you remove , the lighter the back end . 

However , I would guess the worst culprit is paint and covering . 

 

[Murat Kece 1]

I think a composite depron/balsa tail feathers will be acceptable (e.g. depron center, carbon spar and balsa edges). 

My tempest came at 2.8kg without the retracts 😐.. Clearly I have to pay attention to detail much more carefully and stop being so blaze.  I also should have shaved /sanded more as you suggested Richard.

I am not sure how we can reduce the paint weight - I used 2 coats to eliminate the brush strikes. I also used a coat of water based varnish. Other thing is the PVA, should we water it more at the expense of less adhesion at some spots?