The Feb 2010 Issue

[Myron Beaumont]

Richard

Re: Page 70 mistake -4.5 sq.ft is not 0.4 sq metres (wing area ) Ithink !

Correction -just spotted that in the data file it's named as a TYPHOON Mk 1B

Must brush up on my metric stuff  Mind you it's very early in the morning as I read

G-umpy

[airman]

At what age, do the events writtern about in the last paragraph of Brian Winch, Wizard of Oz column, happen?

 

(February issue)

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by Bri. on 20/01/2010 19:49:43:

Good mag as usual but for me the best bit is the letter on page 57 from Dave Ashendon.

 Yes that made us laugh

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Posted by airman on 21/01/2010 07:53:50:

At what age, do the events writtern about in the last paragraph of Brian Winch, Wizard of Oz column, happen?

 

(February issue)

 Never I hope  (hope Mrs A doesn't see this....)

[Tim Hooper]

Only just picked up my copy from Tesco this evening, so only had the briefest of skims through.

 

Gotta love that skinny-winged Slingsby - it's beautiful!

 

tim

[flytilbroke]

Brian Winch appears to want to refute some incorrect fuel tales. He then goes on to repeat one regarding water in fuel. While slightly correct, it is difficult to get a lot of water absorbed then deposited from an air quantity of a litre or two ,or even nearly five, in a fuel container.

 

To have much adverse effect the air content would have needed to be cycled quite a lot to allow much water content to be in the fuel. Keep the container sealed except when filling the model tank and very little water can be introduced.

 

He does give a lot of good information in his regular column thpugh.

[Ross Clarkson]

Gutted i didn't get a rotary tool set when i subscribed!!! Could have done with one of those before i had to buy my own!! ha ha

[Chris Channon]

Hi all, just a quicky, is it me or are the registration numbers different each side  on the Art-tech spit?

Regards

Chris.

[Terry Denew]

It would be nice if my copy was sent to me as ive still not received it yet

 

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Have you called the subscriber line to get a replacement Terry?

[Terry Denew]

Yes ive contacted them by email hopefully i will see it soon

[airman]

Yes,it appears that the regestration numbers are different on the ArtTech Spitfire.

But are they or have the manufacture got them right?

There must be a RCME reader who can explain how regestration were placed on the fuselages of WW11 aircraft.

[Chris Channon]

Posted by airman on 01/02/2010 07:39:46:

Yes,it appears that the regestration numbers are different on the ArtTech Spitfire.

But are they or have the manufacture got them right?

There must be a RCME reader who can explain how regestration were placed on the fuselages of WW11 aircraft.

 So? are they wrong or right?

Regards

Chris

[Pete B]

 The following paragraph is taken from this page, Chris:

From 1938, then, the more secure 2-letter Squadron codes and individual aircraft letters were to be placed either side of the fuselage roundels, though their order of placement was not specified. Commonly, although by no means universally, the codes were so placed that they read correctly whether looking at the port or the starboard side of the fuselage (as AO-M for example, worn by 211 Squadron Hawker Hind K5457).

The placement of codes was far from uniform, however, and seem to have been less uniformly applied by units in overseas Commands than in Home Commands. For 211 Squadron’s Blenheim Is a different practice seems to have been adopted during the LJ and the UQ period: unit code aft of the roundel and aircraft letter forward, whether port or starboard.

Pete

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by flytilbroke on 27/01/2010 22:33:59:

Brian Winch appears to want to refute some incorrect fuel tales. He then goes on to repeat one regarding water in fuel. While slightly correct, it is difficult to get a lot of water absorbed then deposited from an air quantity of a litre or two ,or even nearly five, in a fuel container.

 

To have much adverse effect the air content would have needed to be cycled quite a lot to allow much water content to be in the fuel. Keep the container sealed except when filling the model tank and very little water can be introduced.

 

He does give a lot of good information in his regular column thpugh.

 

 I certainly agree with FTB on this.  A while back I worked out the amount of water that could be held by 5L of air and it was miniscule - significantly less than one drop IIRC.

 

I'm afraid I need to take issue with another of Brian's points.  He states that it's a "common misconception" that "an engine will lose power when converted to spark ignition and petrol fuel."

 

While  petrol has more heat energy than methanol, an engine will develop more power (assuming the correct compression ratio and carburation set up) from methanol. The engine inhales a specific volume of fuel/air mixture per stroke. Because of the different ratio of fuel to air for the different fuels at the correct stoichiometric ratio, the same volume of methanol/air mixture releases more energy than the petrol/air mixture. 

The down side of course, is that a lot more fuel is burnt to produce this power and this has to be carried - but for the average model it's not a major consideration - especially when offset by the extra batteries for the ignition or magneto components.

I've always thought that in rough terms, converting a 2 stroke to petrol would downgrade the performance to approximately that of the same sized 4 stroke - borne out by the RCGF 15 cc snippet in the same issue's Counterpoint.  Looking at Saito specs (from the Horizon site), the equivalent figures for the 20.52 cc versions (no power quoted) give a maximum 16 x 7 prop on the petrol version and 17 x 7 for the methanol one - with a speed range 500 rpm higher.

Edited By Martin Harris on 07/02/2010 01:57:29

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi,

 

was I the only one that was very dissapointed in the tone of Andy Elison's article this month? I usually enjoy his contributions but I don't know if he had indigestion after his Christmas dinner or what - but it really did come across in a rather arrogant and superior sort of way.

 

First we were treated to the piece on the chap that does the remarkable repairs - but not without first some rather dodgy ethic stereotype remarks. These were followed by lots of stuff that seems to be aimed at reminding us readers that Andy was talking to someone that we would not normally get to speak to because, unlike him, our models wouldn't be worth the attention of Mr Fu. Follow that up with some snide remarks about the Mr Fu's clients and how inept they must be to have crashed their models in the first place - accompanied, as Andy reports, with some laughing at their problem (not good for Mr Fu's business relationships I wouldn't have thought). Then rounded off with what seemed to amount to "well you've had the privilage of looking around (courtesy of me) now get back in your box bacause you're no where near important enough to actually speak to Mr Fu yourself - and if you are, well you wont need me to tell you were he is you'll already know through the elite grapevine". I accept that Mr Fu may have asked Andy not to disclose his address - but Andy could have put that a different way. Instead it really came across as if you're famous enough you'll know, and if you're not why bother?

 

As if all that wasn't enough he then went on to have a pop at forums such as this! His particular objection being poor advice given to beginners by what he seemd to class as ordinary modellers passing themselves off as "experts". Now I don't know what forums Andy visits, and I must be honest I don't frequent the glider pages of this forum much, but I really don't recognise this forum from his description. Sure, beginners get advice here - and generally very good advice for which many of them are grateful. I don't see any "self proclaimed experts" here - I see a number of more experienced modellers who take the trouble to reply to people's questions and I see ordinary modellers like me trying to help each other out. As someone who has himself benefited from such replies - long may it continue!

 

But to top it all, this is the best, Andy concludes by actually advising beginners to keep away from forums! Mr Editor, where were you? This forum has become a major part of RCM&E's relationship with its readers - surely you can't support this view? I know columnists need to speak for themselves - and of course Andy is perfectly entitled to his view - but always remember, I don't have to read it!

 

A lot of what he says sounds depressing like the usual journalist objection to the internet - "uninformed comment" etc. What most (not all, but most) of that tends to come from hacks that are frightened that the internet gives access to media to everyone and as such threatens their monopoly. But I'm sure, well I hope, Andy is not in that number.

 

As I said, I usually enjoy Andy's articles. I am not a "sloper" - but I like to read about all aspects of our hobby. So lets get back on track on this and remember - if your readership is going to be confined to the very elite of RC modelling then you'd better start planning for a very much smaller magazine. Its us ordinary club modellers - not league champions - that buy most of the magazines! And while we do like to see experts like Mr Fu and his work - we don't really relish being patronised or talked down to!

 

That's my two-penneth worth anyway! Light blue touch paper and retire....

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 08/02/2010 10:10:07

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 08/02/2010 10:12:11

[Chris Channon]

Hi BEB,

I have to agree, what a total waste of time.

 

" If you need him you will find him "

 

" Laughing about his customers attempts to land"

 

What a totally superior attitude to model flying if i ever read one.

 

The rest of the mag was again, brilliant, just not big enough, lets not have anymore of these silly " i am better than you " articles.

 

Regards as always

Chris.

[Wingman]

Hear Hear! (or is that here here!) in any case isn't his email addy "slopetrash" 

[Lee Morgan]

Hi All

I have had the need to use Mr Fu's talents and can express that you do not need to be an elite pilot or have an elite hanger to use his service, He is just plane busy ( oops lol ) , Tony is very good at what he does and due to that he is very popular for his work. Please dont let what Andy may have implied reflect on Tony or his work, He is a good bloke and very helpful. As for the article and the views expressed in it ! I am not surprised at all that Andy has come across this way . I am sure he doesn't mean to come over as arrogant or disrespectful, Its just the way he communicates.

 

Lee 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi Lee,

 

no critisism of Mr Fu was intended, his obviously a very skillful guy that knows his business well. In fact I felt sorry for him, some of what Andy wrote did him no favours!

 

BEB

[Slopetrashuk]

Ellison sounds like a terrible chap. I hope I don't come across him......

[Eck]

[Chris Card]

If you do come across him, make sure you include your credentials when posting as apparently he only wants suitably qualified experts to comment on forums.

 

Peevie

 

Age 37 1/3

50m backstroke

Cycling proficiency bronze (fell off a couple of times)

 

[Peter Miller]

When reading that column I was reminded of a quote from (I think it was Cassius Clay AKA Muhammad Ali) a boxer.

 

"It is hard to be humble when you are as great as I am."

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by peevie on 13/02/2010 07:45:14:

If you do come across him, make sure you include your credentials when posting as apparently he only wants suitably qualified experts to comment on forums.

 

Peevie

 

Age 37 1/3

50m backstroke

Cycling proficiency bronze (fell off a couple of times)

 

 

LOL