Phil Baker Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Anyone have or flown the following classic MFA designs, to pass on info?Chevron (or mini Chevron)Islander 2Hummingbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Dickens Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I had a mini Chevron in the late 70's. my recollections of it are that it had to be flown at mach 2 otherwise it tip stalled, but then so did most of it's contemporaries.Not a patch on todays 40 sized sportsters! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superchippie Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I also had a Mini Chevron, and, like Chris's, it would instantly tip stall to inverted if I tried to haul it off the deck a fraction too soon. It met its end when I pulled it into a big loop and forgot that I had the low elevator rates switched in. Almost bent the stick trying to pull up! It wasn't built for underground aerobatics! I built a Magicfly, which I never got around to flying. My memory of MFA kits is of a few poor design features which needed sorting before they could be built properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Wood Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I built 2 hummingbirds. Neither very good because heavy radio, no brushless motors / lipos and to top it off appalling wing section/foam wing. Having torn the model apart I must say MFA were way ahead of the time. We just didnt have the radio stuff we have now. If you have a plan build a modern version and all the figures add up to a really nice compact very cheap sport model. I am building another 2 hummingbirds 1 As per plan but built up wing and modern gear. Original weight quoted was 35 to 39 ozphew I hope to half those weights.2 A 34" wingspan mini hummingbird with bellcan motor 2 lipos very light radio(a park flyer with attitude!!)First flight of mini hummingbird within next 10 daysOh! final thought fuselage at front bulkhead designed to be cracked to bring sides in at nose. A situation which you just know will break (it did often and repairing with araldite epoxy didnt help!). Better to use very soft balsa sheet nose doublers and get sanding.It would be nice if other people had a go because for some strange reason I think it is very attractive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Baker Posted June 18, 2007 Author Share Posted June 18, 2007 Interesting comments re Hummingbird. Mine is half built with zero deihedral and strip ailerons cut from the foam t.e. Wing looks the business and is really light. Fueslage also seems a good straightforward design, but not compared to the modern 3-D CNC thingies. They benefit from the use of light ply in geodetic designs with loads of lightening. To do this with a fretsaw would be like community service! (More use though!) I'm fitting a brushless of about 370 size which should power it nicely as a trainer/first aero model. The Chevron 2 is complete but yet to fly (don't think I can cope with tip stalls on take off yet!).The other day I bought a 20 yr-old Yamamoto with the GRP fuse and even the MFA distributed Blue Bird 46 engine. Engine started first flick after all that time and runs a belter. Busily restoring the wing covering and cleaning up the fuse. Tailplane will be replaced as fuel soaked. Generally a nice looking plane - better than many of the current crop. I learned on the original 3 channel wooden Yamamoto which flew extremely well, but met its end when the buddy lead came out and neither I nor the training guy had control. Sickening thud time! Anyone built the Islander 2? Mine is sitting waiting to see the light of day. Twin brushless?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Wood Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Hi Phil,Were you connected with the MFA kits?. If you were then sorry if you are offended by my comments re the wing on the hummingbird. Its the fact that there is very little curve on the lower leading edge ie more like a "proper" Clark Y section. This is the part of the wing section I have altered. The original wing is very strong and I still have 2 of them somewhere. The main problem was always the radio gear / motor setup. I only had very cheap (ie very nasty !!!) radio so motor control was via micro switch with lever moved by sliding wooden block operated via rudder. A quick flick of right rudder gave power on, a flick of left gave power off (all very single channel elmic escapement like. Those were the days dont get me started on veron mini robots!!!). A big problem was the nicads I used which whilst capable of powering the model when flying needed to be charged upto the eyeballs for launching. They were consumer cells so probably not able to provide the required amps at the current required.Any model designed for a brushed can motor and nicad/nimh is totally transformed by modern replacements.The islander 2 with brushless / lipo will fly great.I am looking forward to being reaquainted with the 2 versions of the hummingbird I am building. It has to said that the plan is very well drawn unlike modern plans which range from adequate to downright dire. I don't understand this as CAD is so accurate (or supposed to be!).Must go I have an appointment with Pro film / iron. I will post photos / flying report if interested.Regards Sandy Wood. 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.