No 1 is my six cell, 360Kv original fitted with either 15x8 or 16x6 prop. With the 16x6 it goes like a rocket but gobbles battery power. With the 15x8 performance is reasonable and dependent on flying style, will give about 10 mins of flying time. I used No 1 to gain my A-test and very suitable it was too. Its a good hack model.

No 2 has a brand new and only just run in Irvine Q72 two stroke. This engine was formerly an un-run spare reserve for Rob Newman`s Panic Team.  I found it at the shop wrapped in newspaper and surplus to Rob`s immediate needs. No 2 fuselage is a cloned copy of a Hangar 9 original. It has flown just twice previously but with a 420Kv/6 cell set up.

No 3 is an original Hangar 9 fuselage fitted with a large fuel tank and a Yamada YS140FZ pumped four stroke. The engine and mount only just fit onto the front bulkhead. Extra reinforcement around the nose has been added. The motor has had to be upright mounted because it is so bulky! Servos are tail mounted with a 2600NiMh for the radio gear being located on a removable external plate about six inches in front of the leading edge of the tail-plane. That helps with C of G attainment. A 16x10 prop and genuine YS140FZ exhaust are due here on Monday. Even with the aft mounted battery fitted, I expect to have to add a little lead to the tail to achieve a neutral C of G. This model is the "Big Daddy" of the fleet. It was never built for A or B test work but solely as an engine test bed. Of all these Ultra Sticks, this one is probably the least suitable as an A or B test mule!

No 4 is my genuine Hangar 9 conversion to a low winger. The wing has been cut in half and re-joined with a little dihedral to make to improve appearance, make it a little more docile at low speed and alleviate any chance of adverse rudder yaw. The fuselage has been inverted, a landing gear block inserted topsides and the bulkhead removed and refitted to give the correct right side thrust. The fin and rudder are now remounted on what was previously the bottom of the fuselage. Wing incidence and the front bulkhead retain the original zero, zero, zero set up. Its a pretty conversion but is as yet un-flown. The motor is a new two stroke ASP.91.

No 5 airframe is a scratch built twin engine configuration as is totally unsuitable as an A or B test air-frame!

No 6 is another clone fuselage fitted with a side mounted SC120FS four stroke motor. As with the No3 fuselage, fitting of this motor was a tight squeeze. A 2600NiMh battery is fitted just aft of the marked neutral C of G position. A little lead figures under the tail plane to help with the C of G positioning.

I have two original Hangar 9 wings in stock. They fit all the above fuselages. Why no more wings? I did build a clone example last year but it ended up warped and essentially is only fit for the bin. It was not the easiest wing to build so I`ve not bothered to build anymore. Additional genuine wings are around £106 each....a complete kit is £206 complete with a £30 landing gear, wheels, pushrods, engine mount, tank, etc,etc. So much hardware comes with the complete kit that the wing cost alone is hard to justify. I`ll buy your old Hangar 9 Ultra Stick wings if you have wrecked a fuselage!

I now need to get flying these kites and getting them set up. The focus for this year is attaining a B-test so I need to do some practice flying over the next few months.

More news in due course.

Mike

Collected from Rob on Thursday, the usual retail price of this lovely semi-scale model is £217. It is a very nicely constructed offering from the thriving Vietnamese Seagull company. The parent owner would appear to be SIG. To complete the model you need either a .61 size two stroke or .90 size four stroke I/C engine or electric power set up. In addition, you need radio gear. Other than those items, its all in the box. Value for money, its a lot of nicely constructed model for the dosh.

The kit includes a conversion kits. It is your choice whether you go I/C, in which case you use supplied two part  engine bearers, fuel tank and a throttle linkage wire and outer sheath. The electric kit comprises an electric motor mounting box is also in the kit. Four M4 bolts allow either the I/C or electric kit to use the same bulkhead blind nuts to secure either of the conversion kits. It is a very cute design and you could convert either way in about half an hour if you wish to do a later conversion.

The core of the model was built in about four hours on Thursday. Another five hours were spent on Friday with most of the effort going into manufacture of the dummy rigging wires and end fittings. This was my first effort at rigging and I found it slow and somewhat tedious. It is very fiddly work and you need steady hands and reasonable eye sight to deal with the plastic coated rigging wire and the pre-cut lengths of aluminum crush tube. The tube lengths were rather mean but Rob had previously sold me a length of ali tube so this saved the day. Slightly longer tubes allowed a better finished crimp to be formed. Sixteen lengths of rigging need to be constructed to achieve the full visual effect. That job is perhaps the most difficult aspect of this kit assembly. My rigging effort is reasonable but I would expect to achieve a higher standard with my next effort. Practice makes for a better technique and less frustration as one becomes more adept with the process.

The Oracover covering has been well applied at the factory. No issues at all with that. The model is easily assembled using normal hand tools and there are no nasty surprises or irritations within the kit. This kit is a class leader when compared to some of the naff under developed Chinese laser kits which have recently flooded onto the market place.

Made ready for flying, the Flybaby took just twenty or so hours to put together. In the 1750mm/70" class, its a lot of model for the money. The finished all up weight is 9.6Lbs. This includes a 50/65 420Kv motor and a 4500mAh lipo together with an appropriate speed controller. I have a dislike of UBEC units having had one burn out on Rob Newmans` counter recently. A five cell 2600 NiMh additional free standing battery pack has been fitted above the electric motor mounting box to provide a separate and stand alone Rx/servo power supply. I find that rather more reassuring than waiting for another UBEC to go up in smoke! The electric motor set up employed on this Flybaby has been snatched from my well known and trusty No 1 Ultra Stick. It is the right spec for the job and utilizes a 15x8 APC prop. I have a 360Kv version of this motor currently installed in another Ultra Stick. This can turn a slightly bigger diameter prop which the Ultra Stick can handle with its taller landing gear. No 1 will be refitted today with that power unit.

Would I buy another Seagull offering? Yes, I certainly would. Great price and value for money. Construction is first class and the finished item cuts a good dash.

Yet to be flown but not possible to do this Sunday due to the Biggin Hill Airshow, I might nip up to Fickleshole tomorrow or perhaps when some of us gather on Tuesday morning. More on the first flight shortly.

Mike

The reason I ask is that I have a weston mini hype, a very fragile plane, and one that I feel even a hard landing will mess up! To give you an idea the u/c is held on by 2 servo screws and the fuselage walls around the canopy are made up of one inch wide 3mm ply. I don't see much practical use for the bolts in a crash with that plane and more to the point, it's a 3D model, and I've ventured up to high rates and I've seen what it can do for a "baby" 3D model!

I find that I'm always conscious of the fact that when I'm doing a manoeuvre such as a blender (of sorts) or a tight flat spin, the whole wing is held on by an M4 nylon bolt? I'm thinking of putting a metal bolt on, but is this a wise idea?

B  

The reason I ask is that I have a weston mini hype, a very fragile plane, and one that I feel even a hard landing will mess up! To give you an idea the u/c is held on by 2 servo screws and the fuselage walls around the canopy are made up of one inch wide 3mm ply. I don't see much practical use for the bolts in a crash with that plane and more to the point, it's a 3D model, and I've ventured up to high rates and I've seen what it can do for a "baby" 3D model!

I find that I'm always conscious of the fact that when I'm doing a manoeuvre such as a blender (of sorts) or a tight flat spin, the whole wing is held on by an M4 nylon bolt? I'm thinking of putting a metal bolt on, but is this a wise idea?

B  

I've been fettling the Cougar 2000 I bought off Emay some months ago.

This has a non-standard steerable tailwheel which Emay had started but not finished. I've managed to tighten up all the closed loop cables so the rudder and tailwheel now move appropriately, but it does seem to add significant tail weight, which is affecting the CoG.

I found a post on RCGroups http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115294 which lists the manual-recommended CoG as 100-115mm back from leading edge. When I picked the plane up I also measured where Emay had the CoG on his other Cougar, which I have written down as "125mm, 40mm back from trailing edge of spar". (On my Cougar this doesn't fit: 125mm from LE is only 30mm from the TE of the spar, so I may have written this wrongly or the wing design may have changed slightly.)

Right now, with a 4S 2200mAh as far forward as it will go, the CoG is about 150mm back, which is a long way behind the manual's recommendation and still an inch beyond Emay's.

So, the first question is: I know there are quite a few Cougars in the club - where do you all have your CoG?

The second question is: assuming that it is indeed too far back, what's the best way to move it forward?

• I could add lead, but given it's supposed to be a super-light funfly plane I am loath to do this, and with the motor sticking quite a way out and no cowl I can't add it very far forward. I could maybe try adding weight via a metal spinner or something to get it further forward, but again I'd rather not add dead weight if possible.

• I could try a bigger battery, but there is very little spare space inside the fuz as it is and I'm not sure anything bigger will fit. I'm already concerned about the lack of airflow / cooling around the battery and ESC, and I don't want to make it worse.

Any suggestions welcomed!

Hi!

Over the past week, in addition to rebuilding the Boomerang I have been building plane number 2 of the fleet! I chose a WOT 4 Mk2 (Nitro) and I've got a couple of questions about the ARTF kit that I hope you might be able to shed some light on.

Compared to the Boomerang Kit which I've built two of now (as a result of a very minor crash), my overall thoughts on it so far are not great. I have no idea how they are in general but lets say I think they made my kit on a Friday! The covering is not great at all! Not sure if any of you have had the same issue but I have been busy with the iron sticking it all down and trying to remove as many air pockets between the balsa and the skin as possible. Happily at least nothing was missing from the kit. Not very encouraging to open the box and the first thing you see is bubble wrap wings!

Anyways - my first question relates to the pull pull system for the rudder. Putting it bluntly, I don't think it will hold up to the job! The threads don't hold unless it's tightened up all the way (meaning no adjustment) and although I've now installed it as per the instructions (Including adding some CA on the crimp), is the cable not supposed to go through the brass clamp three times? I also see two holes (see pic). The only trouble is the clamp is not wide enough to pass the wire more than twice. It's holding tension and working but I''m not sure if it will pull apart in the air?

20170228_002501.jpg[/attachment]

If anyone can explain also why there is a wooden elevator push rod in this kit? It took me 3 hours to get that in place because thy distruction manual said I should fit it after installing the rudders pull pull cables. The air went blue let me tell you!

Please let me know your thoughts and if you can answer those two questions above that would be fab!

PS: Anyone wondering about the engine trouble/deadstick and ultimate crash of my boomerang a week or so ago .. the engine trouble was caused because the fuel pipe had split where connects to the clunk. When I took the tank apart, the clunk had broken free! That will teach me for using the wrong sized pipe!

Well, sort of....................

EPP Eagle from HobbyKing. Maidened today. With hindsight I should have put a 2200mAh 3S in it to increase the weight, as that would have made the swirling breeze easier for it, and I am sure it would have flown more smoothly. As it was it flew with the much lighter 1300mAh used for static testing which would be good for thermal catching in the right conditions. It's taileron control.

On the second flight a seagull paid it close attention, and the parakeets REALLY did not like it, alarm calling furiously.

No Buzzards around today to see their reaction, or maybe they were hiding!

This is the new Wot 4 foam e mk2+.

The stickers are, as you will see, a bit easy to gum up the hinges. The old version had foam hinges were dodgey, so I put some glass tape, but only then did I notice the regular hinges for extra strength. I really like the new colour scheme, apart from the gumming problem. The prop needed balancing, and I put a cover over the servos in the fus, and glued the tail and beefed up several areas. The area for my rx was constricted to say the least, so a bit of carving was needed, and yet I still had to angle it to allow it to fit.

I would say see you at the field tomorrow, but the adapter hasn't arrived yet. I have also made a simple bomb drop with a elastic band, 9g servo and rubber band, which screws into a nut in the fus.

See you all soon

B

For those of you that have not owned a cougar, you really need to. I am, as many of you now know, an aspiring acrobatic pilot and wanted a plane to fit the bill. I had four choices:

Wot 4

Cougar

Fusion

Limbo Dancer

I liked the Wot 4, but I couldn't hover and "float" with it. The Limbo Dancer was a kit, so that was a no too. My info on the Fusion was sketchy and sparse. The cougar looked good and, after a test flight with Emay, I decided it was the plane for me. It is simple to assemble and is extremely durable. My ASP 36 found a spacious home and my Hitec servos fitted in snugly.

The Cougar, does what is says on the tin. "The Ultimate Hovering Machine"

The ONLY fault I found was the color scheme, which despite the all purple bottom and yellow top, is still quite confusing. I solved this by using some hobbyking orange tape on the bottom of the wing.

If you want a plane that you can fly and not worry about crashing, the Cougar 2000 V2 is for you.......

So my Cougar is finally complete.I'm running Hitec HS322HD servos for ailerons, rudder and elevator. Due to the small space in funfly aircraft, I'm using a HItec HS81 micro for the throttle. An X6R receiver fits in nicely. I'm using an ASP 36 from Just Engines, complete with a 11x3 prop. All in all it should be just the right plane to do what I want to do. Also, I'm told by MrWestonUK that if my "Rubbishy little engine" can handle it, I should be able to prop hang with ease. I don't know who he thinks he's fooling, The weston eurotech 36TIR is a codeword for Rip - Off and dodgeyness. Two thing that I have as problems are that the throttle is VERY twitchy so expo is needed badly (Rod and Emay). The other thing is the kit didn't come with enough bolts to fit all of the horns down with four each. But of course because I am a seasoned aeromodeller of 6 months, I have all the bolts (probably). Also, the builder in chief is an ex aeronautical engineer from the RAF, do I'm pretty sure it will fly!

This Sunday should be the maiden flight, with the wind at 5mph. The only niggle is my mum has the car, but we will work something out, I should think.

Roll up funfly, I am ready for ya!!!

See you at the field,

Ben

In the last funfly (Skittles), my WOT 4 Foam-E had an "arrival" which cracked the rear fuselage. Upon closer inspection, the carbon tube spine has also split (lengthways like bamboo - it hasn't actually broken the fibres).

I'm considering my options for repairing this.

Firstly, I could take the rear section right off (the foam is broken on one side, but I could break the other side too), and try to replace the spine with a fresh piece of tube. The issues I see with this are:

• there's no guarantee I'll actually be able to get the old tube out of the rear section without damaging everything further.

• getting the pushrods back where they're supposed to be would be hard (I have another fuselage that broke more drastically in the same place, and trying to slot it all back together is difficult as the pushrods want to go through the foam rather than through the holes).

I could try to just get a narrower new tube that would fit inside, and glue this into the cracked tube. This would solve the problem of trying to get the spine out, but wouldn't solve the problem of getting it all back together again!

Alternatively, I could leave the existing spine where it is. I could maybe get some cyano to it (via a long flexible nozzle) to hold it back together a bit better. If I did this, I'd look to reinforce somewhere else to reduce the need for the spine. I could cut slots in the outside of the fuselage and let in some carbon strips to provide stiffness. Another thing I was considering is just gluing the foam together and using fibreglass reinforcing tape to pull it together, so the foam is all in compression.

To be honest, I'm not sure how much impact the carbon spine actually has, and so how important it is to repair it.

Any ideas or opinions?

An Autogyro!!

Hobby King UK sourced Durafly Auto-G2, entirely stock.

Biggest part of the "build" (which took an hour and a half!) was to get the Tx set up using the sprung return switch of my Taranis to run the second motor drive to spin the rotor up to help it ROG .

There's little room inside though, very very tight, and I'll have to get some extended lead "wire" aerials to get really good reception, as the 6CH Rx's "wedge" type aerials were jammed between motor, ESCs (2 of) and the LiPo, and I was getting indications of packet loss (no surprise there then!).

12-15 mph from the horse paddock top meant loads of turbulence for it to contend with, but I wasn't going to wait more time to maiden it!

Power plant and radio:

• Saito 82 turning Graupner 14x7 G-Sonic. Probably going to run 20% nitro.
  
• Hitec HS-5485HB digital servos on control surfaces, Futaba 3004 on throttle
  
• Futaba radio gear to ensure pilot error is the cause of any crashes

"Upgrades":

• 2.5" aluminium spinner and locking adapter from Just Engines
  
• PowerChip LED landing lights from here, switchable from Tx
  
• LiFePO4 power system - no more NiMh for me! (Experimental feature but many have had success)
  
• 380cc World Models fuel tank (model comes with 270cc also made by WM so just needs enlarged cut out)

So, that's all for now, here she is on the table waiting for me to get started:

This is also my first ARTF. It feels a bit like cheating, there is so little to do to build it. Not even the wings need joining as they are in one piece. The main work is installing the radio and engine so it shouldn't take too long. As you can see in the picture there aren't many parts in the box.

I want to use my spare Irvine 46 but the standard .46 size plastic engine mount is too wide for the nose of the fuselage. Does anyone have any ideas how to make it fit or know of a smaller mount that might fit?

I will take some more pictures as I build it and post details of its first flight.

I have tried a few versions of this, and this is the one I'd recommend.

Unfortunately I don't have photos of it, so I'll try to describe as best I can. I might also try to get some photos of the installed one, but they're unlikely to come out well inside the fuselage (if only I'd taken photos as I did it).

If you're modding a brand new airframe, do this as your first action on the fuselage assembly. It'll be much easier and you won't risk damaging the tail assembly while fiddling around! In any event, you need to not have the fuel tank in place.

The undercarriage I used was just described as "Dural undercarriage for 40 size planes" or similar at Inwoods. It's basically the same as a WOT4 undercarriage. I think the one I have may have been Irvine branded. I can't find the exact one I bought listed on their site any more, but any model shop should be able to sort you out with something appropriate.

I mount the undercarriage with two M4 nylon bolts. These seem to be just about right, breaking on abnormal events (like running too fast off the end of the runway) but not normal landings. M3s were definitely too weak with only two. If you reinforce everything as described here you might also be OK with steel bolts as the undercarriage mounting is probably the strongest part of the whole airframe!

The Boomerang has a fuselage former just forward of the leading edge of the wing. There is another former about 2 inches in front of this, which also supports the rear of the fuel tank. I mount the undercarriage between these two formers, so the rear edge of the undercarriage lines up with the rear of these two formers (and hence also the leading edge of the wing).

Cut a piece of 1/4in ply that exactly fits the floor of this space. I measured the distance between the formers inside the fuselage, and determined the width of the space by measuring the external width and subtracting two thicknesses of the wood used for the sides. (Note that the wing seats are doubled, so if you measure those only subtract one.)

Mark the centre line on both the undercarriage and this piece of ply, and then use the undercarriage as a drilling jig to drill two holes to take M4 T-nuts. Fit the former inside the fuselage and use a 4mm drill bit between finger and thumb to drill the holes through the 1/16 balsa on the bottom of the fuselage.

This piece of ply needs reinforcements to attach it to all four sides, but paying particular attention to the front and rear. I have successfully used beech strip (which Avicraft sell for engine bearers and servo mountings), and also 1/4in ply mounted vertically (when I didn't have enough beech left). I haven't tried balsa, but it might be OK as long as you mount it with the grain VERTICAL. Balsa is very weak in tension across the grain, and a hard landing with a bad flare would rip the front of the reinforcing plate downwards. If you use balsa with the grain horizontal then it's not adding much strength in this direction.

Make sure that whatever you use on the forward edge doesn't impinge on the tank hole in the former! Dry fit everything to make sure!

Hammer the T-nuts into the reinforcing plate, then epoxy the plate into the fuselage. Pay particular attention to the edges of the plate rather than the bottom, as these are the bits in contact with strong structural members. Epoxy the reinforcing strips (beech or ply) in place and leave the whole lot to set. Make sure that the reinforcing strips are well glued to both the plate and their respective formers.

For the rear, I currently have a simple wooden tailskid. I cut out the sheeting from the floor of the rearmost fuselage compartment and cut a piece of 1/4in ply to fit (so there is a strong floor to this compartment too). I cut a triangular tailskid from 1/4in ply, sanded to have nice rounded corners, and both epoxied and screwed it (with small brass woodscrews) to this floor piece. I then epoxied the assembly into the bottom of the fuselage and painted the whole thing with warmed-up epoxy to mud- and fuel-proof it.

(If you're concerned about the weight being added to the tail, remember that you've added a big metal undercarriage in front of the CG. Without a little extra weight in the tail you might otherwise find that the plane is a little nose-heavy.)

On my first Boomerang I had a non-steerable tailwheel. I only used a tailskid on this one as I forgot to buy another tailwheel assembly. If (heaven forfend) I need a third, then I would definitely put on a steerable tailwheel. There is a spare pushrod tube already fitted inside the fuselage going from in line with the rudder servo down into the rearmost fuselage compartment, exactly where it would be required. I haven't yet tried this, though.

Well, that's come out a bit longer than I expected, but at least it's now written down. I hope someone finds it useful!

Don't forget you will need to fuel proof the engine bay on a kit build - lot's of ways to do this, but warmed up epoxy glue (so is runny) painted on works well. Would suggest M4 plastic screws, as recently on Martin's trainer we have been finding that M3 go too easily - but then that can be a good thing too If I remember correctly hinges supplied where pinned, I would personally switch these to cyano/mylar but is more of an implementation detail.

Cheers,

Arun

Got a big puzzle here with the Multiplex Easyglider Pro...

Set it all up, tested EVERYTHNIG, and it all worked perfectly, tested on full power, all fine, range tested it, perfect again, everything doing exactly as it should, but, soon as it was launched, it wanted to roll heavily to the left.

Full Right stick stopped it from completely tipping over, so I did a left, left, left and landed it...

Tested it all again on the ground, everything working as it should.

This is also not a new build, its a used model, previously flown exactly as-is, same motor/esc/prop etc, I changed nothing at all.

I did set airbrakes in my 10CG, to 1 switch, but that had no affect on its normal operation when tested..

For the life of me, I cant figure out why it rolled to the left so heavily, and it happened again when Leon tried it, only with kamikaze outcome of a busted fuse where it rolled right over and became a lawn dart on the second attempt.

Anybody ever experienced something like this with a glider (1.8m span) as I cant think of, or find anything that caused it to roll so violently, nor could Leon... Both a bit puzzled

I will likely glue it back together and possibly try again, but fear the exact same thing will happen again..

I should add to, it left the hands straight and level, not thrown up at an angle

I have bought myself a Spacewalker 40 size from VQ single seater.

Got a very good offer and have decided to go for it and put away that boomerang trainer that is causing me problems all the time with the under carriage. On top of that I think is time for me to move on and thought this low wing plane was the one, great looking, semi scale and I have heard you can do basic aerobatics as well.

Has anybody build one of these? and if so any recommendations you could share when building in ?

( in case anything needs tweaking )

I've had one on back order for a bit now! But wanted to see what they were like in the box Most good modelling shops are selling them for around £200!

The re tracks "blue part" from the photos look a bit like SeaGull junk, but we / I will have to wait and see!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qGyZQr8EWE&feature=player_embedded