Piers Bowlan Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I was hoping that a twin would win but I suppose this is problematical for the average modeler, especially in an IC model-more expensive too. Mass appeal is important for magazine sales (and wood and canopy sales too) so a single it is. The Lizzy will be interesting and challenging to build even with a lazer cut kit etc. It's not not the most beautiful aeroplane ever to grace the skies but beauty, they say, is in they eyes of the beholder and I am sure Tony will produce another great design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Lynock Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I suppose I am softening toward the Lizzie now I have gotten over the dissapointment of another WW2 British wotsit, I have memories of building the Airfix kit as a kid and having all sorts of problems fitting the wing and getting those struts in place at the same time, never occured to me to turn the bloody thing on its back with a bit of a support under the centre, regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Richardson Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Atta boy Terry, I was a little dissapointed to like Barry I was hoping the Whirlwind would pull it off. How about one of the air tractors for next year???? say the 401b with a radial engine (I think the fullsize has a P&W 1340) it is purpose built and looks that way and has enough detail to drive the most zealous scale builder to drink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Richardson Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Just googled "air tractor" and their website actually has dimensional drawings for the model builder if they wish to print them, there is also info on one builder who has been building the AT-502 mdel for some time and has fiberglass fuselage and kits for sale, oh well not so different after all I guess. I still think a vote on type of aircraft eg twin, single engine, civil or military and then let Tony/David present us with some options, that said you. cannot please all of the people all of the time. Too many airplanes not enough time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Stil think there is a challenge for TN The body is a complex 3 dimensional surface, particularly when compaired with say a Me 110 or Volks plane, no approximation to a box at all. The intermediate frames are all ovaloid (just made up). Personally i can only think od a crutch method as being feasable, if weight management is a neccassity, From My free flight youth, I found stringered fusalarges difficult to build, any thing like well. I do not think I would be much, if any better now. As has been pointed out, the STOL performance was acheived by , full span leading edge slats and half span flaps. I am not sure at all if anything like scale slats would work effectively. If enlarged both in size and gaps, it may detract substantially from the appearance. I would guess that this pane had retractable slats and flaps, to widen the speed envelope. To model this feature could be very demanding to many of us. Yet to fix tham would look wrong I would yet again guesss. I really wish Tony well with this one, as i do think it is very demanding to design for us. I have mentioned earlier that I remember a Complete-apac version, that flew faster than BAC Hawk, just to stay in tha air, the landing was akin to witnessing the arrival of one the X planes. Erfolg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Nijhuis Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Thanks for the good wishes Erfolg......my thinking (about the design) time so far has equalled design time it took to drawing up the first Special plan..the Spitfire some 4years ago now.....I just hope I can bottom this one out in time for this years special....! What I will try to do is make is as scale as possible (maybe without the fiddly bits) but its got to be simple construction so anyone can attempt it......yikes..... Still thinking.....Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Grigg Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Ive taken the decision to make this my first non kit build as ive followed the thread avidly and I believe it will be a model I will be capable of flying,so im looking forward to this build and nearer the winter will be better so take your time Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Nijhuis Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Unfortunately Stephen I have to be design, built and tested by July this year so wish I could....fortunately you can so please enjoy it and good luck....I'll try and make it easy as possible Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I hope your getting a nice healthy pay check here Tony! Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Richardson Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Can I order one now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I can smell the sweet sweet aroma of burnt glow fuel already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Richardson Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I'll go for a size that suits an RCV 58CD its just sitting around waiting for a new home 65-70 inches would be just right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I have a saito 65 waiting around doing nothing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 65 is too big. 52FS is the "sport" engine of choice, equating to a 40 2S or 400/450W electric Tony - I'm sure you'll capture the essence of the aircraft as you always do, just don't make too many compromises in scale accuracy for ease of construction. After all, if all those people voted for it, then they've got to be prepared to tackle the challenge of building it - otherwise you might just as well design them a Wot4 with roundels. Several people have said it before (including me) and I'll say it again: what we need is a structured poll, not just the free-for-all we've had for the past two years. That's the only way to ensure that everyone who takes an interest has an opportunity to make their vote count. Finally, I know in your heart of hearts you probably wanted to design a Whirlwind - so why not knock one out (!) and offer it to Traplet. Go on, you know it makes sense!... rgds, Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Nijhuis Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Sooner or later the Wirlwind will be done.. be patient Mike...... As for the size of engine I do think a 60-70 4-stroke will be ideal. With the best will in the world the AUW of 66" Lysander is going to 7lbs plus min.....a 40size IC would struggle.... Keep you posted on progress.... Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 But Tony how will us electric modellers go on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Lynock Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 well, if it needs a .65 thats 65 plus a 0 = 650 x 2 = 1300 wattsis, thats an aweful lot of wattsis and lots of battery too to give it the wumf, regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Richardson Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Erfolg / Terence, E-Flite make a range of motors that is sure to have one that will work in this upcoming model of Tony's, the E-flite 60 outrunner on 5 li-po cells should do very well may even be overpowered! sells over here for around $160. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Mackey Posted March 11, 2009 Author Share Posted March 11, 2009 Nope - when trying to do a simple ( and it never is quite that simple ) IC to leccy comparison, the more accurate "rule" is double up and zero EG: for a 65 two stroke you double it to 130 and then add a zero thats 1300 watts EACH. As the suggestion is 65 fourstroke then reckon on maybe a 50 2 stroke - double up add zero now shows.... 500 watts X 2 = 1kW. Draggy 7Lb + model ? = 800 watts or so minimum I would have thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Timbo I think that level of power requirement is probably a major deterant, "at this moment in time" (luv these bovine phrases), to a lot of us electric flyers. It ia an awful lot of battery power, and a big motor to boot. Can we not have something a tad smaller, perhaps in the 500w range. How big a model is that. As an ex-power flyer, who believes IC will be totaly extinct within 10 years, and probably only a very few localities which will tolerate ICs in 5 years, or there abouts, please look to the future! I personally have no problems with IC, having a collection of what I guess pass for vintage today, 0.61 profis, a few 0.5 Mercos+ other mercos, enyas, OS, plus PAW, ED, AM, Albion. Which to use would curtail my flying substantially, NOW! Erfolg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Lynock Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Hi Tim, this was my concern all along and may now be taken more notice of and thats the sheer cost of putting something this size into the air, a motor will cost you at least £60 for a decent lump, then you need about £35 worth of ESC and then some pretty big batteries to push it. Then you need four servos and a RX so all up you are well over two hundred quid before you have even started on the airframe, so how many of the RCM&E readers will spend all that money on one airframe? I would say it is in the minority as most of the readers will prefer to spend £150 quid or so on a complete setup ARTF. Plans should be aimed at those people who can afford to produce something from them not the well oiled minority, we all would like to see more people coming back to building their own airframes but while free plans that may otherwise have persuaded them are for large span technically advanced models costing a lot of money to put up there we can forget it. Those people are probably ARTF now and will stay that way because they cannot afford anything else and as much as I prefer traditional building I cant say as I blame them, best regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 You could get it reduced... Perfect Tony! it looks like me and my dad will be making one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Lynock Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Now if I get this Irvine 40 I have laying around and rig it up to a big motor and drill the head to fit a couple of one-way valves and blank off a couple of others it may just make a useful little piston compressor for me airbrush,. Run it at about 2850 rpm into a pressure tank then fit an oil trap and away we go, regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Richardson Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Timbo I have to agree in some respects 100w per lb is great but would we really need that much power for a model of this size and type after all it is a slow ( and should be ) high lift STOL aircraft not a Yak 54 type, I am not sure but I believe E-Flite name their out-runner motors to their performance of a 2 stroke glow if this is so the 60 should be more than enough, that said the battery requirement will not be small 5-6s maybe. Re-reading the article on last years plan I see Tony recomends an Axi 4124-14 or equivalent and a 4s 3700 mAH Li-Po for the 7lb Typhoon, although no mention is made of prop size and a lot can be achieved by juggling battery and prop size to garner the correct amount of thrust, providing ground clearance is avaiable. I really cannot see this one being any more exspensive to kit out than the previous two, I do not know the cost of all equipment in the UK but here in Canada most guys figure on $500-$800 for the average model excluding the Transmitter ARF or otherwise that said I have a superb Magic fun fly ARF that cost only $225 (that would be about £110 I think) but I also consider it totally expendable. Terry has a point about easy to build and less exspensive free plans but Tony has penned a few of those over the years with his dogfight doubles the Mosquito/Moskito comes to mind I also think there was a Se5a and its counterpart, I most likely have the plans somewhere, I might be wrong but I think that many modellers will keep the plan for a future build knowing that they now have a plan that is not front and centre in the hobby and others will set to and build before the ink is dry on the article. I really do plan on this one being a project for next winter and will purchase the wood pack to make it a little easier, and depending on finished weight may have to start looking for a bargain 70 four stroke or suitable electrickery set-up who knows, either way it is exciting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter 'Ivanna Crashalot' Savage Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I made a depron dogfight double spitfire and the bloomin' thing saluted! lets just say the ailerons turned into rudders! that was a few scratch builds ago though mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.