The Big Question ?

[leccyflyer]

Not normally a big P-40 fan, but's that's a bonny model, for sure. 🙂

[Ron Gray]

Hmm, not too sure about a lack of interest (zero - get it?) in the Zero as it is a nice flying model and is not mainstream like P51, Spits and Hurris (is a Hurri mainstream?) 

 

Pudding pair of 109 and Hurri.

[Ron Gray]

27 minutes ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

twins could be a follow up that I also thought about

A good follow up yes and for not having a rounded fuse the Tigercat must be up there.

[Trevor]

I think Richard really wants to do a P38, but sadly nobody has suggested it 🤔

[GrumpyGnome]

ButcherBird and Tempest gets my vote....... two of my favourites.  Simpler the construction the better so my build enthusiasm does not wane.  4S Lipo pack max.

[Chris Walby]

Reality check....IMO you just won't get the interest or numbers for a twin of any sort although the PZ and BH mossies are long gone and Motion RC do a great foam P38 and Tigercat so that's them covered off. That leave the P82 and others that are too odd ball which really leaves HE111 and BF110, but again you won't get the number.

 

My vote (although I would like a twin) would be known good fliers and mainstream adjusted with easier/cheaper build materials.

• FW190
• Hurricane
• Zero
• YAK 3

There are other manufacturers producing ME109's and Hien's etc so I thing they will take numbers away from Richard's viability to build kits.

 

I agree with GG around easy build...I would then cajole club members to have a go based on the "mass build" type of support available which might get us into order book double figures!

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

My choice,

Spitfire

Hurricane

Zero

ME 109

 

2 /3 bladed props ( drone props )  no undercarriage, 3 channel, no rudder.

 All on 3s as I have a ton of 1300/1500  x 3s from my drone days, and a few 2200 x 3s

[leccyflyer]

Thing is that the basic premise being proposed is that they ought to be a bit bigger than the Cambrian funfighters, or you are just competing for sales in what is firmly their territory and rightly so, and with the same cast of aeroplanes. So in terms of electric flight that puts you in the 4s1p 3300-4200mah battery range, brushless outrunners in the 35mm category and 11" -13"  props, to give 100w/lb or better, for effective dolly or bungee launch. Small batteries are not going to cut it and 1300/1500mah 3s1p packs would be in the realm of significantly smaller warbirds - 30" span, maximum 2lb AUW.

[RICHARD WILLS]

Thats right Leccy . I dont want to invade Darren's fun fighters so this wont be an ongoing thing . These will be bigger and slower . Though not fancy or fussy . 

Two blade props and hand launch or bungee . (I will try some really simple bungee stuff to see how simple we could go ). 

I would go for 4s  3300 packs , but if I only had say 2200 3s I would pair them up in parallel and get a 1000kv motor instead of say a 700kv-800kv on 4s .

These are really a "white label , no frills " version of the classic "full fat " 55" warbirds . 

[GrumpyGnome]

FW190A please - not ugly long nosed D  🙂

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

I go with 3s packs as that is what most of our club fly, only one plane with a 4s and 3 helicopters on 6s + .

[Ron Gray]

20 minutes ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

These will be bigger and slower . Though not fancy or fussy

Yes please, bring it on.

 

A country wide competition is forming in my mind ‘Warbird Wars’. Enter your scores on a web based spreadsheet published on here. Voting on here too. Oh yes it’s starting to take shape with attendance as next years ‘Best of British’ event at Buckminster.

[Piers Bowlan]

Personally I would prefer a F4F Wildcat in preference to a Hellcat. I think the reason why the Wildcat is not often kitted is its feindishly complicated retract mechanism but if you are going for belly landings it is not an issue. As an alternative to the Pacific theatre blue scheme there is also the camo scheme of the British Martlet version too.

The Tempest is not often modeled which is a pity, although I have one of the World Models kits (but sadly not flying yet).

 

Incidentally I built a PSS Blackburn Firebrand out of foam using 3 view images I downloaded from the internet. Once I had cut the fuselage formers from thin ply, hot wire cutting the fuselage sections was easy and quick, which were then just glued together. Once reinforced with thin ply and carbon fibre strips the structure became very stiff, paricularly when I had it covered with brown paper and PVA.

 

A kit of uncovered foam (EPS) sections plus a few reinforcing pieces of wood for the wings and fuselage would be cheap and quick to produce (?). How many people would want to try their hand at brown paper covering is another matter however. I suspect some people would rather spend £500 on an RTF foamy and not have the hassle and mess of building something themselves. Each to their own.

[DaveB1]

Yes please - I'm up for this too. Loved building a Cambria FW190 funfighter recently and found the finishing the most enjoyable part, but I like the idea of something larger and slower. Any aircraft in the above lists would work for me but I would like to do a Corsair at some stage. I manage successful handlaunches about 80% of the time and after some minor reconstruction this week would be interested in trialling better launch methods. A rough and uneven patch precludes retracts for me

[leccyflyer]

9 hours ago, Piers Bowlan said:

Personally I would prefer a F4F Wildcat in preference to a Hellcat. I think the reason why the Wildcat is not often kitted is its feindishly complicated retract mechanism but if you are going for belly landings it is not an issue. As an alternative to the Pacific theatre blue scheme there is also the camo scheme of the British Martlet version too.

The Tempest is not often modeled which is a pity, although I have one of the World Models kits (but sadly not flying yet).

 

Incidentally I built a PSS Blackburn Firebrand out of foam using 3 view images I downloaded from the internet. Once I had cut the fuselage formers from thin ply, hot wire cutting the fuselage sections was easy and quick, which were then just glued together. Once reinforced with thin ply and carbon fibre strips the structure became very stiff, paricularly when I had it covered with brown paper and PVA.

 

A kit of uncovered foam (EPS) sections plus a few reinforcing pieces of wood for the wings and fuselage would be cheap and quick to produce (?). How many people would want to try their hand at brown paper covering is another matter however. I suspect some people would rather spend £500 on an RTF foamy and not have the hassle and mess of building something themselves. Each to their own.

The salami method is a great way of quickly producing a fuselage, especially for subjects with rounded cross sections. I really dislike seeing slab-sided fuselages on what should be nice monocoque oval cross sections. I know it makes kitting and construction easier, but it spoils the model for me -my Kyosho Spitfire is a case in point with it's slab sides.

[Ron Gray]

I think we have to understand what a manufacturer (Richard in this case) thinks is achievable in terms of both materials and subject matter and of course the potential cost. 

[RICHARD WILLS]

Well Ron , as you have dabbled with mini production runs , you will appreciate whats involved . We also have to keep these cheap for their size and quick to build . 

If it goes ahead it will be a winter build for us all , with me obviously needing to make the two prototypes first . 

My gut feeling would be to settle on the Tempest and Fw190a as they offer two different paint jobs, dont clash with Funfighters and I have canopies and cowls (albeit need a new one for the 190 )  Regarding their construction , just chewing it over at the moment .

Initial thoughts are similar to my original kits of the 2000s but instead of foam veneer wings and decks , use computer cut dense blue foam . Wood is expensive , but I think tail surfaces and perhaps fuselage sides are worth the expense to prevent future warping .  

Now , this is the important statement . From my experience , the exact shape and quality of build and final prep (sanding down etc) is not that important . 

So the brown papering to protect the foam parts and seal the wood parts can be done cold like wall papering and just smooth it on with your hands . Any fool can do it (i am one of them ) .  When it dries , it will go tight and look , at worst , OK . 

However If you nip back to my pictures of the Fw190 , Tempest and  Zero , you cannot tell that they are way off scale and made of foam board and brown paper !

Our shapes will be better than that , but my point is , that to get a jump on other club members who show up with beautifully moulded warbirds , we do need a  convincing finish . You have seen over the years how my models look , but be reassured ,  I am not a perfectionist like Ron , Graham R or Paul Johnson , so you dont need to be one either to get a real wow factor model . 

So the trick with this adventure , assuming it goes ahead , is to get a very fast build , then all of us that are  a bit shaky on painting will follow the B and Q paint with a brush finish , which I will lead . I am confident that we can get a very similar look to an airbrushed finish and all for a few pounds . 

On the other note mentioned by Dave B  on launching , I wondered if the simple ground bungee and toppling A frame(trestle)  method would work ? 

For those that don't know it , you simply stretch a short bungee along the floor , but one third the length from the fixed stake end you put a foot high trestle , making the bungee ramp up from the model . As you let go, the model heads off at about 10 degrees , but then before it gets to the trestle , the retraction of the bungee pulls the trestle over leaving clean air . 

To make this go ahead , perhaps chat to your friends to see if they fancy it ,as we do need numbers to make it work . 

No Idea about how much price wise ,  but if you consider a bigger fun fighter then I guess you will be near the mark . They should be versatile enough to pull radio and esc and motor out of the spares drawer or an older model . 2 blade prop availability is so great that motor KV and battery size options are endless . Plus, when you consider that point and not too fussy about KV , then you can buy motors from around £20 . 

[Trevor]

For difficult-to-launch model, I've found that fitting a (heading hold) gyro is far less faff than carting around a bulky bungee. To be honest, with the somewhat lardy EDF I have in mind, I also found it impossible to get enough energy stored in the bungee to get it away, without becoming scared of the thing pulling the model to pieces as I stretched it out. 

 

On the other hand, with the gyro set to maintain a slightly nose up, wings level attitude, you can just concentrate on hurling the model as hard as possible without worrying about getting it away in precisely the right attitude. As long as you give it flying speed, the gyro will sort it out without you having to make a wild grab for the sticks. For a low wing warbird I would recommend building finger holds into the underside though - you don't want your fingers to get caught up on those lovely trailing edge wing fairings and stand the model on its tail. There's a limit to what the gyro can do!

[RICHARD WILLS]

Thats a good idea Trevor . Many modern receivers have an inbuilt gyro too . 

For  old school , we need a few options too. With finger holes , I go for a longer rectangular recess . That makes the feel , more like a high wing fuz . 

Secondly, regarding pulling the model apart with the bungee . My trick would be to put a ply central rib in with the hook as part of the shape . Then bury a 20swg wire down the bottom of the rear fuselage connecting the ply rib and hook to an eyelet out the back of the rudder post . 

That way all the stress is taken by the thin wire under tension . 

Ive never had much luck with dollies . But I know there are some experts out there that can help .

As I fly mode 1 , hand launching has always been easy 😛

[leccyflyer]

Dumb question here, regarding the A frame trestle technique - if the model is on the deck ready to launch, doesn't that limit the prop size to less than that of the cowl?

 

My three point dolly has worked very well with fun fighter sized models and replacing the original 2.5" wheels with larger Flair Vintage wheels meant it was able to be used on some of the less than perfect fields that I've encountered. I'm lucky now though in being able to call upon the services of two superb hand launchers, plus the other options being discussed sound workable, otherwise the hand launching, particularly of a 55" span model, would definitely be a massive turn off for me.

[Ron Gray]

1 hour ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

Wood is expensive , but I think tail surfaces and perhaps fuselage sides are worth the expense to prevent future warping .  

Personally I would go with Depron, depending on thickness required, 2 sheets 3mm stuck together, 3 + 6mm etc, extra rigidity can be added with CF spars. The advantage of this form of construction is that it his cheap, easy to form (sand), strong and easy to repair. That has certainly been the experience with my Depron Hanky Plankies (the wings are 2 sheets 6mm glued together with a 5mm CF - they do not bend, in fact even the KF profiles which are basically just 1 sheet 6mm Depron with the CF spar don't bend).

 

Not sure a bungee will be necessary for these models but I would favour a very simple launch ramp made out of plumbing waste pipe, I built one a few years ago to launch my mental Fun Jet (pdf in runner running off 6S - I was very wary of getting anywhere near the pusher prop revolving at 18K revs!) and that cost me about £20. the advantage is that no strain is placed on the model as the bungee connects to a foot pedal and the model is connected via a short length of towline. As others have said, a gyro would greatly assist with those hand launched torque rolls, as would a flight controller which could provide full auto launch functions.

Edited August 20, 2023 by Ron Gray

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

1 hour ago, RICHARD WILLS said:

As I fly mode 1 , hand launching has always been easy 😛

I would love to see a video of your easy technique.🤐

 

As for mode 2 ( proper way to fly ), radio in the right-hand plane in the left, left hand throttles up then launches, right thumb does the two primary controls.🥳

[Ron Gray]

53 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

radio in the right-hand plane in the left, left hand throttles up then launches, right thumb does the two primary controls

Nah, Mode 2 launch, model in the right hand left hand controls throttle, launch then right hand returns to radio - no problems if your model is trimmed correctly. I've seen loads of vids where the mouth is used to up the throttle, could never understand why. I've used this method for all hand launch models (apart from the aforementioned Fun Jet bacon slicer) 600mm ws to 4m (Leprechaun).

[GrumpyGnome]

I do same as Ron.....  

[leccyflyer]

Mode 2 launch, both thumbs on sticks, expert hand launcher does the hand launch. If hand launching my own wee models, transmitter in the right hand, thumb on right stick, throttle opened with the mouth and typically underarm launch with the left hand. On the extremely rare occasion I launch something else - like a glider - then it's an overarm launch with the left hand - really don't like lunging for the primary control stick immediately after chucking a model right handed and wouldn't dream of trying to launch a 55" span, 4lb model myself.