Super Flying Models SE5a kit

[Mike.K 60]

My first posting on this site, guys so feeling my way in. Hope I get this right!

I`ve just built the new Ripmax 48" £103 SE5a kit of around a thousand laser cut pieces in about 120 hours over two weeks. As a builder, its complete joy with only a few little mods required to strengthen formers in the rear fuselage and some infills at the trailing edges of the wing centre sections. Everything slots together and CA is the predominate adhesive used. Just a little alaphatic PVA used for fuselage doublers and joining the three sections of each wing in slow time. Essentially the model jig builds itself. The first wing panel took me a hour and a half. The last one took me just twenty minutes! The only slightly iffy parts are the cabane and inter-plane struts which are 3mm ply and are prone to splitting when slightly compressed when bolted up to the wing mounts. I`ll probably re-make those in carbon fibre strip or perhaps  some 2mm ali sheet I have.

The kit, 700 motor, a couple of 12x6 wood props and speed esc came from George Worley at 4Max Models for just under £190. George is a great guy and is extremely helpful when it comes to specifying what power gear is needed for a particular model. Next day delivery is always the case and Georges prices are some of the best out there. 012 Cream Oracover X 2m and 018 Olive Drab X 3m came from Als Models. Costing for the coverings is about another £50. Again excellent and fast service from them. The 4s 2200mAh lipos came from my held stock and also the mini 9g servos. I`ve doubled up the aileron servos to four as the manual suggests fitting heavy duty units. Metal geared 9g servos are cheap enough on eBay. I`ve just bought five for £11 for my next project model which will be the Super Flying Models Fokker DVII in the same series as this SE5a. This kit is available from 4 Max for £99 and is of a similar build to the SE5a.

The kit is a joyous build and goes together extremely quickly and with only the odd minimal issue. I`d give it a 99% rating. The instruction manual is of ancient production quality. Images are black and white and of low pixel size which often lead to head scratching as one un-ravelled just exactly how to progress. Those instructions could be better but didn`t detract from the quality of the model or the build itself. The finished model is really quite nice and visually is very sharp. A gloss finish although not authentic, adds a "wow" factor and just makes the model, in my opinion, more pleasing to the eye than if I had completed it in a matt finish. Judge for yourselves.

The power gear is light in weight which meant about 8oz of lead ballast had to be added below and to the sides of the motor. This, despite all the electronic gear and Lipo being brought as far to the front of the model as I could get it. The tail end was kept as per the instructions and there was little I could do to get a lower weight at that end. The finished model with all gear installed comes in at 5.2Lb or about 2.5Kg. The manual suggests 4Lb as a finished weight but I just don`t know how that could be realistic. It seems many manufacturers quote very lowe weights which in the real world are well neigh impossible to achieve. Perhaps someone could correct me if they feel this isn`t the case!

So there we are. a lovely little model and from a build perspective, highly rewarding with a very nice end result. It`s yet to be flight tested so model details on that in due course.

Mike K

Edited September 29, 2018 by Mike.K
Mis-spelling

[Pilot Ben 28]

Looking really good Mike! Do you think it will make it to the field tomorrow? 

Touching on 4-MAX, I can thoroughly agree with you about the service that George provides. For those that have seen my Cougar, the entire £65 setup was purchased from 4-MAX after some advice and discussion with George about the optimum sized prop for my model. The quality (and performance) of both motor, ESC and all the bits in between, are second to none for the price point.

With regards to the weight; I have found that manufacturers are usually quite ambitious with weight on their models, and this could be for a number of reasons. For example, since your SE5A is a kit build, some of the extra weight could comprise of things as minute as how much glue you used, the modifications you made, or even the covering (Oracover is on the weighty side remember). These things could be especially true since Ripmax, as one of our favourite far-eastern suppliers, will most likely have used the least amount of glue and the lightest covering on their versions. However, I too don't quite see how your model could be 1.2lb heavier than the quoted weight. One last thought is that Ripmax may have purposely under-quoted, to save people (like myself) from chucking in a bigger-than-recommended lumpy 4-Stroke (based on the famous modellers guesstimation), putting the model over the viable flying weight. We'll just have to see how it flies! After all, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

 

Thoughts?

 

B 

[Mike.K 60]

Thanks for the reply and comments, Ben. All very valid.

I`m trying to get some free time either today, Sat 29/9 or tomorrow Sun 29/9. Trust me to pick days when I have to attempt to find coverage for looking after my severely disabled Father. I`ll see what I can do. I`m still hoping to get to the Biggin visit tomorrow but again I`m struggling with that.

George opinioned that with say a .40 i/c motor instead of electric, the model would have almost self balanced to the correct C of G with very little ballast being required. He is probably correct on that. Solarfilm is indeed rather lighter than the much denser and much more opaque Oracover. Some extra weight will of accumulated as a consequence of using Oracover. No doubt about that.

I`ve still to set up throws and expo on the SE5a. I`ll have a crack at that today if I can  grab the time. Otherwise any appearance I can make at the field is likely to be with my hack Mini Super and the as yet un-flown small 60" electric Ultra Stick.

The large scratch built and now finished Ultra Stick has turned into something of a monster. It`s weighing in at 14Lbs with a self built epoxy/cloth cowl with still some ballast being needed after that. I realise on this model (having read several Ultra Stick forums posts) that people really struggle to get a forward C of G even with DLE30/35 motors installed. My model has just a humble ASP 1.08 two stroke fitted which is likely to be rather lighter than some of the large DLE units. The model also remains to be air tested. Because of its size and weight, I`ve asked Steve Fysh at Riddlesdown MFC (my old club of 40 years ago) to have a go with it at their huge open field down below Edenbridge. Perhaps better safe than sorry. Fickleshole is somewhat tight! Although slightly "off topic", a few Ultra Stick images are below.

Thanks for you interest, Ben.

Mike

[Pilot Ben 28]

Lovely bit of work Mike; You sure have been busy!

Once confident with the larger "Stik" you should be able to use it at Fickleshole, I would have thought. It's very similar to a Wot 4, and you know how well those things slow up!

Anyway, I'm off to go and try get some models airworthy for tomorrow. Hope to see you somewhere at some point,

B 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Pilot Ben

[Bravedan 106]

Hi Mike,

Lots of effort gone into that SE5A.

Not that easy to see from your picture, but it looks like you have loomed the aerial (at least one) in with other wiring.  This not ideal.

The silver end section of the wire aerial is the actual signal receiving part, and this at minimum should be located as far away from wiring, battery, or anything else metal or carrying signal/voltage. Also the wiring not pulled so the receiver exit wiring is pulled tight. Something moves and it pulls apart!

Looks as though you have maybe correctly located the aerials 90 degrees to each other, but that is essential, too.  Pic 11 I think refers.

Also, your motor to ESC wiring looks to be against the balance weights so the cable will vibrate against the corner edge of the weight, possibly wearing through the soft insulation and short.

 

[Mike.K 60]

Fear not, Dan.

The installation image was an early shot and the aerials were just were they were when I snapped. The whole installation was reworked several times until I got things worked out. The aerials are now properly spaced with the ends being at 90 degrees to each other and well away from any close interference. The same really for the front end shot where the motor wires appear to be touching the centre weight. At that time I was only roughing out C of G and was getting that right before finally nailing up the front end.

I`ve now corrected a mis-alignment issue with the starboard side inter-plane strut. I`d put the model together quite quickly in order to show it at the meeting and knew that one wing tip was half an inch higher than its opposite number. A simple reverse of that strut unit has all trailing edges set uniformly at exactly 9" distance and pleasingly also the aileron link rods where centre to centre, both dimensions of the rod lengths are now also the same.

Your observations appreciated. Good to have someone checking things out and making sure the model has its best chances. As far as I`m now concerned, its ready to go! Just the transmitter to set up now for this particular model which I hope to get done tomorrow morning. (Sunday 30/9)

Cheers, guys.

Mike

[Pilot Ben 28]

You can always count on Dave to find the things that everyone else misses!

I certainly owe him a favour or two...

Edited September 29, 2018 by Pilot Ben

[Mike.K 60]

One should never be frightened of good advice or second opinion. Indeed this was a core value instilled when I went back to Technical College and studied for my License Without Type Rating in the aero industry. Critical points were always inspected and signed off by the engineer doing the work, and two other suitably qualified engineers. The last inspecting person was the man who carried the blame if something went wrong in service.How well I remember wire locking eight prop nuts with the twisted wire pulling in the wrong direction. I never did that again!

Here is an image taken from Georges` site of the Fokker DVII I propose as a next project. A tad easier to build by the look of it with just two ailerons. The cockpit cowl though appears made from ABS plastic of which I`m not fond. It distorts easily if too much heat from a covering iron is present. It strikes me I could balsa wrap the top of the cowl structure as indeed the unit was on the SE5a. There is a vid on Youtube of one of these Fokkers flying in the hands of a Shropshire MFC member. It seems very nice indeed. The kit is £98.99 including post from George or other sellers. Lets face it, you can`t go wrong at those prices. It would take a year with an electric fret saw to hack out all those pieces! All the bits and bobs are included with the exception of coverings, adhesive, power and radio gear. I discovered a 40a ESC in one of my Fathers boxes this morning. Totally unused with not even connectors soldered on. So thats £28 off the next build if I stick to the same set up as in the SE5a. The PO-3547-700 motor from George is £36. Ebay are listing 5 metal geared 9g servos for just £11. An Overlander 4S 2200 is available for £36 from several sources. I could do with a couple more for stock. Coverings would again be around £50 but I have some red and white left over from other models. The Fokker could be quite an economical build.

Mike

Edited September 29, 2018 by Mike.K
Price correction.

[Bravedan 106]

Nice. You could always pick one where the cowl was a different colour, and use an acrylic aerosol. Or in halfords find a suitable matching red from the big range of shades.

[Pilot Ben 28]

Only thing to be aware of with the spray aerosol paints, is that depending on the make/type/etc, they are quite prone to splitting. This isn't a problem once on the model, however when manipulating the cowling around the engine (cylinder head, carb, muffler, etc) the cowling will flex slightly but the pain won't.

Best solution really is to just take it slow, as "touching up" tends to leave slightly different shade marks and lines on the cowling. That said, I don't think you'll have a problem with this type of aircraft. I think that it is usually the tighter fitting ones such as the cowlings on aerobatic/WWII fighters that cause the problems. 

I have to say that the DVII does look particularly good, and the price only makes it sweeter!

[Mike.K 60]

I used to be a vehicle paint sprayer and later took the skill set with me to the aero hanger during the period of studying for my aircraft maintenance license. In those days I could colour brew my own paint shades in the paint shop. That was very handy on occasions. Now, without those facilities, colour matching is more difficult. Yes, Halfords do have a good "on the shelf" range but believe me, getting a match is often a fraught affair. Halfords used to do a bespoke Holts mixing service at their stores. That has now been taken away which is a great shame. They were the only people I could find either locally or via the internet that would mix in small batches in aerosol form. That facility was good for me as the PEF so called black paint on my Jaguar XJR was difficult to get matched accurately so I now need to find another outlet for the Holts system. Non of the other suppliers were able to get the match right at all with internet suppliers often sending very bizarre shades. I usually found that the PEF paint I needed would always come out with a brown undertone which looked dreadful on the car.

I had a real run around attempting to get a match for the red Solarfilm used on my Super Chipmunk. I tried many different paint outlets to get a match without any success. I tore my hair out in the process and had to accept a near match. In the process of getting the right colour, I bought five different aerosol cans and none came anywhere near the right shade. Buying those cans cost £25 and one can`t continue to throw money around like that just hoping one of the shades will match. What colour is on the lid of the aerosol is often a thousand miles away from the required colour when solvents have flashed off and the paint has matured over a couple of weeks. Sometimes, though, you can get a match but that doesn`t often happen. I`d also add that some suppliers do offer to add a flexible additive to a paint brew on request. This is normally added if for instance you require to paint a flexible plastic car bumper cover where the ability of the paint to have some elasticity is obviously highly desirable. I used to use that additive when spraying fibreglass cowls, wheel spats and wing tips on full sized aircraft.

As regards that ABS plastic cowl top on the SFM Fokker DVII, it should be a simple enough matter to roll balsa cover the cowl frame structure as was the case on the SE5a. Two sections of sheet 2mm balsa, glued together with CA, followed by sponge damping and rolling it around the structure to get the shape. Left with a few strips of insulation tape wrapped around it, the balsa soon gets a nice profile. That done on the SE5a, I force dried with a hair dryer and CA glued the sheeting onto the cowl frame. Nice and easy, no bovver and the job done in about an hour. No need for paint, just covered in Solarfilm, Oracover or what ever your chosen covering might be. Keeping things simple is often the best way. Painting is a much messier and rather more un-reliable alternative and frankly one that I try to avoid if I possibly can.

The SE5a kit included an ABS cowl, wheel covers and the pilots headrest. I had to reinforce the cowl with some small carbon fibre rods I had. Inside the cowl, the ABS was abraded to provide a mechanical key for 5 minute epoxy and inserted carbon rods. Had I not put that reinforcement in the cowl, it would have split in a very short space of time. The ABS wheel covers were simply abraded then fixed to the wheels with CA. That worked well. The pilots headrest I felt would be difficult to fix to the balsa and ply turtle deck, so I made a copy in soft block balsa and CA glued it to the model. Its indistinguishable from the original ABS part and was easily covered in Oracover.

Just my take on the matter. Each to his own methodology. Give ten men the same job and all would do it differently...... but some results might be more successful than others!

Mike

[Bravedan 106]

Agreed, but the as viewed shade of a painted metal cowl was often quite different to the painted doped fabric, especially after a hot engine and exhaust system close to the panel had existed for a few hours running. We often over strive to get matches that actually did not exist in reality. It was war, they were not building concours.

Often the fabric painted over quickly matted more that the metal.

An example is all the best looking "bare metal"  finished models have differing shades/textures on panel to panel finishes. Subtle but definitely not a match. Then add scale effect.

It's like I pointed out today while looking at several real fabric covered planes, the "rib tape" serrations are actually so small that at a club size model scale they would NOT be visible AT ALL, certainly not the pinking shears finish often used!

There was a huge argument that raged for weeks years ago on a Tram forum as to if the shade of dark green Corgi had used was correct. Eventually a fitter for Blackpool came on and stated bluntly in best "Lancastrian" that they used whatever dark green Woolworths or the local suppliers had that week!!  I have sanded down 1920-1930 bus panels, buses always in the same company and the differing shades have to be seen to be believed. Part patching was normal.

[Mike.K 60]

Yes, Dave, I suppose is is very easy to get a bit over picky in detail. Certainly some of the ancient aircraft I worked on were far from perfect colourwise. Many patch ups and different shades of colour (even white) done over years by different maintenance businesses could produce a real patchwork. You never knew what paint had been used previously, its manufacturer,  paint code or classification.

An orange Stampe that I  worked on had landed on its chin many times. Then it occurred again and it was my turn to tease out the punch on the chin, lightly fill, prime, flat down and spray my closest colour match. Of course, age fading also had to be considered as did the fact that the colour rendition on the adjacent linen covering also threw up variations. We used to take on paint jobs on the condition that we would do our best within the quoted price to match the paint as best we could. Sometimes the job came out perfectly, on other occasions the match was off slightly. "Stand back six feet, Sir" would then apply. Its not always a perfect world. Green, yellow and red were always the most troublesome colours as they would fade badly due to age and UV attack. Its no different a problem to that faced by paint boys involved with cars, boats. planes, trains or cranes!. Even repairing white polyester crystalic gel coat on boats could give issues. Again I`d do my best to get a match but I`d always say to the customer that I could not and would not guarantee a perfect shade.

I`ve dug up a few more images of the SFM Fokker DVII. I see it is available either as a covered and virtually complete ARTF or a base level kit similar to the SE5a I`ve just completed. The ARTF version is a little more than double the price of the basic self build, £99 kit. Which ever one is chosen, it really is in my opinion an excellent value for money package. Images of the ARFT version attached. I`ll open a separate thread on that build once I get my hands on the kit. I`ve one unopened 1.27m x 0.68m roll of red JP 5523070 Solarfilm here but a second will be needed. No doubt someone one ebay will be punting out the remains of their stock. I better see what I can find.

Mike

[Mike.K 60]

Here we are again as at the end of August 2019.

Having gained my A-test and piled a load of air time in on the Ultra Stick, my abilities are rather better than when I re-started flying after a forty year break in April this year. I`m certainly more confident now than I was and have learned to fly out of Fickleshole with a reasonable certainty of being able to get a model back on the pitch.

With confidence improving and to an extent also my own ability, I decided it was time to fly the Se5a myself. Yesterday saw me up at the field flying the model.

During commissioning in the workshop, I`d struggled a bit with the CoG recommendation in the build manual which put the position 100mm back from the lower wing LE. It seemed very far aft and I`ve become aware over the months that some Chinese or Vietnamese kit builders are hopeless when it comes to signifying the correct CoG. My research into bi-plane CoG said that one should measure back on both wings 25% of the wing chord marking the easily found point on the lower wing.  The same idea on the underside of the top wing. Dropping or raising vertical lines would produce two points. I did this on the top wing underside. Splitting the difference between those two marks apparently gives the correct position. As it stood, I was highly suspicious of the SFM CoG which seemed to make the model very tail heavy. My calculation of CoG position was some 65mm further forward than recommended....!?

I had also looked at plans for the Se5a on the internet. It appeared that generally, CoG positions marked on many model plans had CoG markings at a similar point to my own calculated positions. I had something of a quandary on my hands. I had to start somewhere with the issue so moved the model CoG a little further forward than SMF suggested.

The model took off well but immediately stuffed its nose skywards. Clearly tail heavy. I flew the model around for a few minute just to get an improved radio trim and suss out low speed handling prior to landing. That was event free but the model was far from stable on finals.

On the bench in the pits, more lead was added. Very much better on the second flight but still not right. Elevator for and aft pitch control was very sharp but calmed down somewhat with lead added. Back in the workshop, more lead has been added. Hopefully, I`ll fly the model again today and see how that pans out.

Up in the evening sky, the model looked wonderful. At slow speed it appeared very scale like and evocative. The model has the potential to be a very nice flyer. I just have to get that CoG sorted. More news in due course.

Mike

[Mike.K 60]

Another late afternoon/evening session flown.

With the chunk of ballast already in the model moved right forward into the motor cowl and a further 20gms added, the model became further improved. On the first flight I considered the model now a tad nose heavy. Removal of 10gms and another flight found this model just about perfect in trim. I`d also adjusted transmitter expo to give 35%< which took all the bite out of aileron and particularly elevator inputs. An aileron to rudder mix of 50% helps the model avoid yaw although rolls tend to be of the barrel type. I need to learn to counteract that with a good stab of opposite rudder to get something akin to a reasonably straight roll. More practice needed. The nicest CoG dimension is 115mm rearward of the leading edge of the TOP wing. At that location, the model flies as perfectly as it could become. A few basic loops were tried and found successful.

Once again conditions were reasonably calm with wind at 7mph/15mph gusts from the south. I enjoyed circuit work in preparation for landings. The model does float and gets pushed upwards quite easily as you come over the hedge from the Biggin Hill end of our site. Getting the model back down low again for a landing on the patch with better accuracy will take further air time practice. I`ve flown the Se5a now for about 30 minutes in total and continue to explore the flight envelope. The model is a little sweety and I`m very taken with it. Images below show the model on its maiden flight last November. Until someone gets up to Fickleshole with a camera, these flying pictures will have to suffice.

Overall impression of this kit, its build ease and flying ability fully deserve a ten out of ten rating. Value for money with a build cost including coverings, motor, esc and 3200 Lipo amounting to about £230 is a typical costing which you would be hard to beat. Radio gear is an obvious extra expense.

Ground handling and take off are a cinch and I`ve not yet managed to tip the model on its nose. Landings can be excellent three pointers with plenty of elevator authority. All in all, this SFM kit is an understated little gem. I like it very much.

Mike