Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
UK_Widowmaker

My Wife wont get me this! :(

Recommended Posts


Your wife wont what? divorce...

 

I reckon so!....I have been a model husband!!...but you have to draw the line somewhere! :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cute, Widowmaker, but at that price you might be able to build one with landing gear?

Don't know about the RC market, but I'd go for such a "toy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I WANT ONE!

 

You should thank your missus for nixing this. I mean, this is a Mk IIB. What did that one ever do? Your friends would laugh at you if you showed up at the RC field with that, especially since you didn't build it yourself. Now, if you could find a Mk I, Mk V, Mk IX, or perhaps even a Mk XIV or XVI, she might say OK rofl.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to tell you, Simon, but I've got one.

 

The chap I bought it from has fitted a retract undercarriage. Flys better than the BF 109 i had, which has now moved on to my mate.

 

Mind- if you haven't flown RC model planes, you can't start with a Spitfire.

There's a fair learning curve involved. much like learning to drive.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to tell you, Simon, but I've got one.

 

The chap I bought it from has fitted a retract undercarriage. Flys better than the BF 109 i had, which has now moved on to my mate.

 

Mind- if you haven't flown RC model planes, you can't start with a Spitfire.

There's a fair learning curve involved. much like learning to drive.

 

cheers

 

That's an understatement. Best to start with a nice easy trainer. A small high wing monoplane that's very stable is the best way to learn. They tend to be very forgiving to the beginner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an understatement. Best to start with a nice easy trainer. A small high wing monoplane that's very stable is the best way to learn. They tend to be very forgiving to the beginner.
Also, you want a trainer that is fairly small, like designed for a .25 engine but you put a .30 in it for better performance. The smaller the plane, the stronger the airframe and the less momentum it has, so the less damage it takes when you crash it. And trust me, you'll be crashing your trainer a lot, especially when getting the hang of the backwards controls during landing approaches. Naturally, you want a durable plane with a simple, wooden structure that you can repair easily. Foam and plastic planes are much harder to repair, often impossible. Besides this, you want the wing attached with rubber bands instead of screws. With rubber bands, when you land on a wingtip (rather common in learning to land), the wing is free to rotate back on the fuselage or even come off completely. This results in no or very minor wing damage. If it's screwed on, OTOH, either the wingtip crumples badly or the screws rip out of the wing. Either way, it's a big repair job. Be sure your trainer is a kit you have to build, too, not one of those ready-to-fly things. With the kit, you get full size drawings of all the important parts like wing ribs. You'll need these to make replacement parts from time to time. You don't get that with the RTF planes, which is a real bother when (not if) you break it. Anyway, with a small, simple, kit-built trainer with rubber-band wings, you won't often have to make major repairs. Minor repairs will be needed frequently, however, but you can do them in the field in a few minutes and continue flying. Just have some balsa of various sizes, tools to cut it, some super glue, some 5-minute epoxy, some low-temperature covering material and a portable hair dryer, and a collection of spare push-rod clevises, control horns, and related hardware, and you'll be all set for expedient repairs cool.gif Edited by Bullethead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you want a trainer that is fairly small, like designed for a .25 engine but you put a .30 in it for better performance. The smaller the plane, the stronger the airframe and the less momentum it has, so the less damage it takes when you crash it. And trust me, you'll be crashing your trainer a lot, especially when getting the hang of the backwards controls during landing approaches. Naturally, you want a durable plane with a simple, wooden structure that you can repair easily. Foam and plastic planes are much harder to repair, often impossible. Besides this, you want the wing attached with rubber bands instead of screws. With rubber bands, when you land on a wingtip (rather common in learning to land), the wing is free to rotate back on the fuselage or even come off completely. This results in no or very minor wing damage. If it's screwed on, OTOH, either the wingtip crumples badly or the screws rip out of the wing. Either way, it's a big repair job. Be sure your trainer is a kit you have to build, too, not one of those ready-to-fly things. With the kit, you get full size drawings of all the important parts like wing ribs. You'll need these to make replacement parts from time to time. You don't get that with the RTF planes, which is a real bother when (not if) you break it. Anyway, with a small, simple, kit-built trainer with rubber-band wings, you won't often have to make major repairs. Minor repairs will be needed frequently, however, but you can do them in the field in a few minutes and continue flying. Just have some balsa of various sizes, tools to cut it, some super glue, some 5-minute epoxy, some low-temperature covering material and a portable hair dryer, and a collection of spare push-rod clevises, control horns, and related hardware, and you'll be all set for expedient repairs cool.gif

 

 

Until a year or so ago, that was sound advice. however, there have been drastic changes in the making of models and the materials, etc , as witnessed at our flying field.

There is a substance now called Elapor, used a lot by Multiplex- damn near indestructible foam type stuff. They are making all sorts from it, including trainer types etc and most of these planes are now using electric motors as opposed to I C engines.

That's the way to go. you can land- well crash, really, - these things and they don't break.

ideal to learn on.

Get a RC flyer mate, use a buddy box - i.e you both have identical transmitters with a cable connecting the two. He can hit a switch and take immediate control of the plane you are flying if you ( and you will ) get into difficulty. This makes bad landings/ crashes a rare thing.

 

Soon you can go solo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first successful model was a plane out of R/C Modeller, I think the issue was from 1966 or 67, and Dad helped build it. It was called the Lightning Bug, and had 16 inch wingspan, and was powered by a Cox .010. The plane was rudder only and used an old Airtronics Adams Acuator for control of the rudder. It was basically a controlable free fight model. Once I goy good with it, I put a bigger gas tank in it, but if you filled the tank full, the plane would only fly about 6 feet off the ground until enough gas burned off that it would start to climb.

 

But my best one for trainers was when I built the old Goldberg Falcon 56 MarkII

 

Falcon56Navy.jpg

 

My first 4 channel model. I took most of the dihedral out of the wings to get better aileron response, and she flew great the whole time I had it. The paintscheme is my own design. The fuselage is covered with silk, and epoxy paint, and the wings and tail are supermonokote iron on fabric. I had this one for about 10 years and eventually sold it, to make room for a 1/4 scale Fokker EV / DVIII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a substance now called Elapor, used a lot by Multiplex- damn near indestructible foam type stuff.

 

Yeah, but that's not MODELING! There's a lot more to flying than just being able to wiggle the joystick the right way, and you don't learn that unless you build the plane yourself. Plus, where's the adventure (as in risk) with an unbreakable plane? Where's the pride in being able to do an inverted limbo under a rope 3 feet over pavement if all you have to do is put a new prop on it if you get too low?

 

IMHO, the really cool part about flying models is that you get to recreate, on a small scale, the whole birth of aviation. You build something you don't really understand at first, you tweak it, you learn to fly it, you modify it to fly better, you repair it when it breaks, etc. You miss so much of that going with RTF planes. And SCREW ELECTRIC MOTORS! I want the NOISE, I want the castor oil exhaust! How can you recreate the feel of early aviation without castor oil all over everything? And I want to adjust needle valves and idle stops to get max performance, not just put on a bigger, badder battery pack.

 

Call me old school, but IMHO if you go RTF and electric, you might as well not bother and just play video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the dual star engine that they have. Would it be a good idea to put that in a ww1 plane or would it look funny?

 

 

Which engine are you referring to? Any engine will work in R/C models but it helps to hide it as much as possible. The engine in the vid is a V-12, but they also have a twin row 14 cylinder radial like the FW 190 A series had. The V-12 would work in WWI planes like DH4 which I think used Packard Liberty V-12 engines that were built under license.

 

What Dad and I used to do, was get the Davis Diesel Conversion kits for glow engines, which did away with the glowplug, and a need for a battery to start the engine. It used a compression screw on the top of the cylinder head, with a lockdown nut once you had the engine tuned. We had built our last plane before Dad passed away, a Fokker EV, and used this type of engine as the diesel runs at lower rpm rates and you have a wide variety of prop sizes you can use. The EV had a 60 inch span, but the engine was only an OS Max 40 converted, with a 16 or 18 inch wood prop. The fuel was interesting to make as it was Kerosene, Ether, and Parafin. But the engine was mounted inverted so we wouldn't have to cut a hole in the top of cowl, and we made dummy cylinders to help hide it. We didn't have model rotary engines in those days.

 

On planes like the SPAD, Fokker DVII,and SE5 we would make a scale exhsut pipe like they had, out of brass and silver solder. The engines were small enough that they could be completely enclosed in the fusealge, again due the ability of a big prop on the front, and as long as we use mesh screen and louvers like the real planes had, the engines kept cool, but the diesels ran cool by nature anyway, and the prop blast helped while on the ground. The other neat thing about diesels was the slow rate of fuel consumption. A 4oz tank of model fuel only lasts 8 to 10 minutes on average, where you could get 20 to 30 minutes out of a diesel. So we used to take 2 to 3 battery packs for the planes and transmitters to the field. It just took some getting used to with throttling up and down, as the engines had a slight lag with throttle input, and care had to taken with too much input as it could flood the engine if applied too quickly. Ya' just had to learn what to do with them is all, but once you got used to them, they were a lot of fun.

 

Here's a 1/3 scale AVRO 504K with a rotary engine. The video is neat but there isn't any sound. http://modelrotaryflyer.tripod.com/avro.htm

 

And here's a model rotary engine:

 

This may also be of interest: http://modelrotaryflyer.tripod.com/ Cool vids here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but that's not MODELING! There's a lot more to flying than just being able to wiggle the joystick the right way, and you don't learn that unless you build the plane yourself. Plus, where's the adventure (as in risk) with an unbreakable plane? Where's the pride in being able to do an inverted limbo under a rope 3 feet over pavement if all you have to do is put a new prop on it if you get too low?

 

IMHO, the really cool part about flying models is that you get to recreate, on a small scale, the whole birth of aviation. You build something you don't really understand at first, you tweak it, you learn to fly it, you modify it to fly better, you repair it when it breaks, etc. You miss so much of that going with RTF planes. And SCREW ELECTRIC MOTORS! I want the NOISE, I want the castor oil exhaust! How can you recreate the feel of early aviation without castor oil all over everything? And I want to adjust needle valves and idle stops to get max performance, not just put on a bigger, badder battery pack.

 

Call me old school, but IMHO if you go RTF and electric, you might as well not bother and just play video games.

 

What is it about these puritan traditionalist types that won't accept anyone doing something in a slightly newer,easier manner?

"I did it that way, so you have to do it that way." - I've heard this for years. I am not a builder, but i can fly and I have done for years- and i have known a lot of builders( who you refer to as modellers ) who will never be able to fly a model while they have a hole in their ----

 

But I don't knock them - if their enjoyment is building and not flying, then fine. In fact, I envy their skill in building, but I want to fly - and I do.

But you want to tell me that I am therefore not a true modeller.--

I once saw this attitude at its worst at our Model club's monthly meeting, some years ago.

We had invited a local model maker and seller to bring along his kits to show to the club members. He, of course, was pleased to do this in the hope of taking a few orders. These were not ARTF gliders, but kits which still required a fair bit of building skill.

At the end of the evening as this chap was packing things away , there remained with him a few Club officials, including one who was a real die hard traditionalist. he built only, from scratch, models which he had designed and drawn up himself. That was his speciality- he produced some beautiful gliders ( PSS ) - they were immaculate, and much admired, including by me.

 

However, whilst this chap was packing his wares up, this clown took it upon himself to pick up a bundle of balsa wood, waving it in the air and declaring, in front of this chap, who had spent all evening entertaining the club members by showing his kits,

" This is the only true kit. This is the only way to do modelling "

 

How rude and bigoted was that ! Sure,for him, that was modelling- but not everyone is him. nor could be him for various reasons- time, skill, inclination etc.

 

Why should they not be able to be modellers then, if they happen to do things not his way?

 

Making and flying RC planes is a "broad church" There is room for ALL facets of it.

 

I have seen many newcomers attempt to enter this hobby and try to learn to fly model gliders and planes.Some guys teaching them insisted on wood models only, none of this new fangled foam stuff...

 

And over the years, 90 per cent of the newbies never went beyond six to nine months - got fed up with taking bags of wood home, week after week.

 

Says it all, IMHO

 

You enjoy your way BH, and let others enjoy their way.

Edited by Fortiesboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could borrow one and fly it by her with a banner expressing your undying love for her. That might do the trick. If she said no because you'll poke someone's eye out you may be screwed. Good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it about these puritan traditionalist types that won't accept anyone doing something in a slightly newer,easier manner?

"I did it that way, so you have to do it that way." - I've heard this for years. I am not a builder, but i can fly and I have done for years- and i have known a lot of builders( who you refer to as modellers ) who will never be able to fly a model while they have a hole in their ----

 

But I don't knock them - if their enjoyment is building and not flying, then fine. In fact, I envy their skill in building, but I want to fly - and I do.

But you want to tell me that I am therefore not a true modeller.--

I once saw this attitude at its worst at our Model club's monthly meeting, some years ago.

We had invited a local model maker and seller to bring along his kits to show to the club members. He, of course, was pleased to do this in the hope of taking a few orders. These were not ARTF gliders, but kits which still required a fair bit of building skill.

At the end of the evening as this chap was packing things away , there remained with him a few Club officials, including one who was a real die hard traditionalist. he built only, from scratch, models which he had designed and drawn up himself. That was his speciality- he produced some beautiful gliders ( PSS ) - they were immaculate, and much admired, including by me.

 

However, whilst this chap was packing his wares up, this clown took it upon himself to pick up a bundle of balsa wood, waving it in the air and declaring, in front of this chap, who had spent all evening entertaining the club members by showing his kits,

" This is the only true kit. This is the only way to do modelling "

 

How rude and bigoted was that ! Sure,for him, that was modelling- but not everyone is him. nor could be him for various reasons- time, skill, inclination etc.

 

Why should they not be able to be modellers then, if they happen to do things not his way?

 

Making and flying RC planes is a "broad church" There is room for ALL facets of it.

 

I have seen many newcomers attempt to enter this hobby and try to learn to fly model gliders and planes.Some guys teaching them insisted on wood models only, none of this new fangled foam stuff...

 

And over the years, 90 per cent of the newbies never went beyond six to nine months - got fed up with taking bags of wood home, week after week.

 

Says it all, IMHO

 

You enjoy your way BH, and let others enjoy their way.

 

Actually there are a lot of people who fly ARF planes. It has openned up the hobby to those who don't have the skills or time to build there own planes. Especially the time and skill to build scale planes. There is a lot of tinkering involved with it on that level. Especially if you design your own plans. Even the planes from the Model Plans Service from Britain, there are or were many WWI types that were giant Free Flight models that lent themselves to R/C conversion, but knowing what to re-enforce and how to is a learned skill. Having to repair the fuselage from a rough landing and the battery pack breaks through the bottom, and things like that.

 

The only thing I'm leary about the prebuilt planes is, an issue of quality control where the plane is built. A flyer out at the field where my uncle goes had a beautiful scale P-51, and as he was making a low high speed pass across the field, the wing snaped at the center. The plane of course went in, and the wing half that broke off flutterred down, and from inspection, it was a poor design, and the main brace for the spar and leadinging edge after time fatigued and snapped. Had the wings been joined in the center with a piece of plywood on the spar and trailing edge, then covered with sheet balsa on the center section and cover that with fiberglass cloth and resin, it would be almost indestructable.

 

But each person has their own way of doing things. I have been tempted to get a small schoolyard flyer that I can just step outside into the yard and take a couple early morning or evening flights without having to load up the gear and drive all over creation to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.