Jump to content

Please disable your Ad-Blocking software to continue using our website.

C.A.M.F.C - Members & Visitors area

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Last week
  2. Sorry for not replying sooner, I've managed to borrow 2 now thank you but i'd like to get mine fixed or replaced if possible. I have taken it to work to see if i can do it. if not Trevor i might give you a shout. Emma
  3. did you get this sorted Emma, I could have a look thru my stuff? Peter
  4. Might be able to fix the lead for you, depending on how broken it is
  5. Davidford

    Heli Setup

    Hi All, Is there anyone fairly close to Rddhill way that would be able to assist in heli setup. Im Happy to make it worth while. Currently have TREX FBL 600 nitro and lecy Rex 600 Copy with a DX8 Tx. Ive slowly learned to fly but have no idea on how to setup to fly these new ones. May look to Avicraft and have a trip tomorrow Cheers Dave. feel free to bung me a message 07976939743
  6. Earlier
  7. Hello, i was wondering if anyone has a non broken Phoenix rc flight simulator dongle they aren't currently using that they might be willing to lend me. My USB lead into the box has been damaged during my house move and I could really do with practicing my take offs and landings before I risk my airplane. thank you for reading emma
  8. Here is my latest low wing conversion Ultra Stick project which is now complete and ready to go. A couple of weeks ago I bought another standard Ultra Stick kit from Ali Machinchys` father at Als Hobbies in Milton Keynes. This makes the third one I`ve had from him to date. The first two have been built, one as an electric version with a 5060-420Kv motor running on a 3700 or 4500 six cell and UBEC set up. The second one has a brand new and unused Irvine .72 nailed to the front. I also have a scratch built cloned fuselage fitted with a low time ASP 1.08. A genuine spare wing will be sourced from Munich over the next few days to give it its own wing. Why from Munich? Well, even with delivery charges and customs and UK delivery added, I can make a saving of £36 on that spare wing with the complete and covered "spare part" with ailerons coming for exactly £80. In the UK, the lowest price I can find for that same part, costs another £36. In perspective, given materials and covering costs of scratch building, it hardly makes building a cloned wing a financially viable proposition let alone finding about twenty five hours of personal time required to build it from raw materials. OK, everyone knows I have the hots on the H9 Ultra Stick ARTF kits which are not only exceptional value at £206 delivered, they fly like a witch, are very forgiving with a wide flight envelope, but best of all, the kit is so well designed and has a large amount of parts included which makes building a standard high wing kit possible in only about eight hours. Over the past year or so, I`ve looked at a number of internet forums and at YouTube vids. This has given me an insight into the world wide Hanger 9 Ultra Stick scene. It has been interesting to see what other modellers have done with this particular H9 offering. One of the most fascinating models was a standard kit modified to take an I-beam across the engine bearers which was then fitted with two electric motors. Ungainly the model was but boy, did that model do the business when flown. The sound was amazing. Just as interesting was that the modeller was based in deepest Alaska and was flying the Stick in winter half light off a beach covered with foot high snow! I also tripped over a 2001 vintage article published in the American RCM magazine. The writer, Jim Feldmann had taken one of the early Hanger 9 78" Ultra Stick Lite kits and converted it to a low winger. He then wrote about it for the magazine and included detailed images of the salient conversion points, miniature plans and also helpful pointers for anyone thinking of converting a kit from high to low wing. Google images also showed that several other modellers had also built similar low wing conversions. The Feldmann article gave me the impetus to perform surgery to Ali Machinchys` latest Hanger 9 kit and to get into email conversation with him at the Horizon Hobbies HQ in Illanois where he holds the position of Senior Product Development Manager. Ali was interested in my comments about the standard Ultra Stick kit and was quite amused when I said that I intended to chop a kit about and turn it into a low winger. Now the model is complete, images have been sent to Ali and I`m presently awaiting his comments. I`ve also mentioned that I quite fancied building a high wing, twin OS .40 engine version but that is a subject for another thread. The conversion was straight forward enough and without any particular issues. I noted Jim Feldmann had initially flown his conversion with a standard flat wing that was devoid of any dihedral. This caused the model to suffer adverse yaw when rudder was applied. Right rudder input would cause the model to roll to the left which was of course rather undesirable. Jim then cut the wing in two and added an inch of dihedral under each wing tip which cured the issue at a single stroke. Rob at Avicraft and indeed our James both thought that adding dihedral would be un-nessesary. I went away and cogitated on the conundrum. I hated deciding to turn down the advice of Rob and James especially as they are two such experienced guys. Mr Feldmann said in his article that the model improved greatly as a result of the dihedral addition and that the resulting improvement gave the low winger almost identical benign flying characteristics as the original high wing configuration. My flying abilities are presently advanced ab initio at best so I decided to err on the side of caution and give the model the highest chance of survival in my hands that I could possibly manage. So dihedral this model has gained at this point in time. A flat wing can also be trialled at a later date. The next item that required my attention was moving the landing gear from the bottom of the fuselage to the top. The idea of the conversion was that the fuselage would be stripped of the original H9 covering and simply turned over to provide instant low wing configuration. On the high winger, the landing gear axle line is just behind the leading edge of the wing. Short of building the landing gear into the front of the wing just behind the leading edge, on the low winger I would have to accept that the landing gear had to re-locate forward of the leading edge putting the axle line about two inches further forward when compared to the high winger. Jim Feldmanns model was built to that maxim and he said there was little to chose between high and low wing versions when it came to take off, landing and during ground taxi work. That gave me further encouragement. The Dural sheet, pre-formed landing gear is standard H9 Ultra Stick which on the high wing original, points slightly forwards. As I needed the axle line to move rearwards on the low winger, I simply reversed the landing gear and put the wheel spats on back to front! A classic case of keep it simple, stupid!! The thrust angle for the engine was reversed at the front firewall and I left down thrust as set in the high wing kit. Only after examining images taken yesterday, did I note that the engine appeared to have a considerable degree of up-thrust. How I missed that detail, I don`t know but the issue has now been fixed by insertion of a covered 1/4" ply packer inserted between the top part of the two part nylon engine mount and the top of the firewall. The engine now appears rather better zero`d out and the panic packer is almost un-noticable! The wing was cut in half with a modellers hand saw. Wing ribs and spars are made from lazer cut and profiled 3mm ply. Ribs are notched at the TE, LE and mid depth section to engage the spars during construction. Lengthwise, the two part spar is joined off centre from the centre section with a dovetail joint which is over plated with a section of 3mm ply which acts as the reinforcement joiner. Above and below the main spar are two conventional 6mm square spruce spars which together with the full depth ply spar, run full length to the tips of both wing sections. 2.5mm balsa sheet spans the centre section with capping strips topping the majority of the wing ribs. It is traditional construction given a modern twist. On the standard wing center line there exists a centrally placed 3mm rib. To keep that rib in one piece to act as a pattern for my re-construction, I cut down either side of the rib in order to preserve it as a template. That done, all I had to do was cut two new and identical ribs plus one that had and extra 2.5mm of height added to wing sheet level. The three new ribs were laminated together and that gave a glue land for new sheeting to be added either side of the center line. Dihedralled wing joiners were constructed for all three spars with the LE and TE spars having long, taper scarf joints machined on their exposed faces with a similar detail being machined onto the new dihedralled wing joiner reinforcer at the LE and TE. A replacement planted on balsa leading edge was glued to the front spar and sanded to profile. Wing dowels were re-located as the wing orientation is turned up side down (or downside up) which ever way you might wish to see it! Re-building the wing took just a day and a half and although I had to cut back covering in order to chop into the wing, some of this has now been replaced with matching Hobby King white and black covering with the Oracover bright day-glow orange also requiring replacement in various areas. Inevitably you can see where I have replaced covering sections but the end result is probably a 95% good job. I could have completely recovered the wing but that measure seemed rather extravagant. You have to examine closely to see where I have cut and shut this wing back together. The wing weight gain after reconstruction was just two and a half ounces. The fin and rudder required triangular additions once the fuselage had been inverted. The tail plane is mounted exactly as for the high winger but obviously the fin and rudder had to mount at 180 degrees variance from the high wing model. Small dorsal fins have been added in front of the fin and below the fuselage. A modified Du-bro tail wheel assembly was required in order for the tail wheel assembly to mount correctly. Inverted, the flat profile of the Ultra Stick looked very poverty stricken and uninteresting. It also visually looked "unfinished" and the presented top decking looked like it had been penned by the man who designed the railway sleeper. To counter that effect, a simple shallow, light weight "whale back" structure has now been constructed on what is now the top of the fuselage. This tapers in a straight line from zero at the front firewall to a height of 18mm approximately 30% back from the wing LE line and then again tapers down to about 6mm at the rudder stock. The effect is of a long, gentle curve of an elongated aerofoil which adds interest and character to an otherwise bland expanse of fuselage top deck. To pep things up further, I plundered Jim Feldmanns model for his cockpit idea. Jim had a molded, clear plastic canopy made for his model which is somewhat reminiscent of a P.51. To save additional cost and effort, I cobbled up a light ply and balsa cockpit, sanding to profile and covering with white Hobby King film and some silver film to hint at a glazed area. This cockpit represents an option or two. Once the model has been test flown without the canopy, it can then be added if desired and the model reevaluated to ensure flying characteristics haven`t been unduly eroded. Fitting only requires a bit of double sided tape and the gap disguised with a few strips of HK covering material. The motor fitted is a brand new, unmarked and as yet un-run ASP.91 sourced at a bargain price from eBay. It is side winder fitted with the exhaust exiting just inboard of the starboard landing gear leg. It looks a neat and tidy installation and one that is rather prettier than an inverted install. My 1.08 version has the inverted set up and frankly, it is downright ugly as well as being more challenging at start up time. I changed the standard 8oz fuel tank for a Du-bro DB412 12oz tank in view of the large engine fitted and its fuel thirst requirement. The tank just squeezes through the bulkhead aperture forward of the wing. I soon realised that an access hatch would be impractical given that bottom access would be needed and that any chance of removal via that hatch would be impossible due to the new mounting location for the landing gear. Jim Feldmann also came to a similar conclusion as myself and he too also decided to fit the tank into the model via the wing leading edge bulkhead, dealing with any tank maintenance or cleaning when and if an issue ever arose. I don`t like sealing a tank in place but in this case, like Jim, I had little choice. The model weighs in at 8.3Lbs/3.7Kg and is about a pound heavier than the very light weight electric version. The heavier .91 motor allows rudder and elevator servos to be tail mounted. All servos in this model are metal geared and as a result a pack of eight weigh just over a pound. Seven are fitted in this model. A 2600NiMh 6v Rx and servo battery pack is positioned on the main internal chassis plate just forward of the rear wing sheer bolts. Moving that battery for or aft is easily accomplished and has a useful weight shift which allows the C of G to be altered with little fuss.The weight and balance schedule now being what it is implies that the model is of a similar weight to one of Ali Macs prototypes. On that example, Ali fitted a beautiful if somewhat heavy Saito 19R3 radial engine and countered the weight with rudder and elevator servos placed at the tail plane leading edge. That model flyies wonderfully even at that weight so hopefully mine will do likewise. With a reverse colour scheme now applied and with a standard high wing US along side, I find myself doing a double take each time I see two fully rigged models in the workshop. You think, "Eh, err, which one is the right way up"?! I still haven`t adjust to that visual impact yet. I wonder what others will make of it? As always please guys, comments good or bad appreciated. Mike
  9. Guys, does anyone have a very low time OS Max .40 SF two stoke nitro/glow engine with muffler in near new condition that they might no longer need? I have one almost new engine here but need another identical unit for an up and coming twin Ultra Stick project. Please give me a call or pm me if you have one you no longer need. Thanks. Mike Kennedy. CAMFC member. 07974 131127
  10. I`ve copied and pasted the text below which I`ve extracted from my post asking for advice on a suitable B-test model. As it is about the Ultra Stick, it seems appropriate I add it to this thread. It makes interesting reading. "This is an old PDF from around 2001 and can be found attached at the foot of this posting. It is an extract from the RCM magazine publication of a similar period. This is the write up of an inverted "low wing" conversion undertaken by Jim Feldmann...presumably in the States. Jims` conversion was applied to the then current Hanger 9 Ultra Stick Lite 78" version which was the earlier H9 kit produced before Ali completely reworked the design into the version which hit the suppliers shelves in 2018. Jims` low wing conversion appears very nicely executed having acquired a bubble canopy and pilot, a Pitts type cowl, had its fuselage inverted, fin and rudder inverted together with a dorsal strake below the lower, rear fuselage added and the landing gear moved forward to enable the wing to mount without obstruction. The model has also gained a rounded turtle deck which softens appearance somewhat. My next proposed Ultra Stick is highly likely to be a low winger with an inch or so of dihedral added to the wing to counter adverse rudder yaw. As I understand it from other forums, the low winger then flies pretty much the same as a high wing model. My intention would not be to add the extras that Mr Feldmann built onto his model, but would keep the hard edged appearance of the standard H9 model complete with an "inverted" colour scheme. This would be quickest done by stripping the fuselage covering off completely and recovering once modifications are complete. Using the remaining stock of my Hobby King white and black together with florescent red Oracover which I have here, the re-cover costs will be minimal with time taken to re-cover being just a couple of hours. If another H9 kit arrived tomorrow, I`d estimate that I`d have a conversion ready to fly in little more than a couple of days. These kits really do build quickly and without issue." It looks as if a third landing gear ordered from the States is on the move again out of Heathrow via carrier. This will enable all three models to be fitted with a spatted landing gear. In the meantime, I`m off up to Fickleshole in a moment with a view to joining Trevor for a bit of flying. The plan is to fly the electric Ultra Stick and perhaps run engines on the other two air-frames. I`ll take a camera and see if I can grab some images. Mike Ultra_Stick_Lw_RCM-1307_Article(1).pdf
  11. Here you go, Ben. Available from Als Hobbies on weekday, next day delivery by DPD. Ask for Big Al and mention my name. Ultra Stick 10cc ARF (A-HAN2345) These two videos show Ali discussing the model and flying it. 13:15 Hangar 9 Ultra Stick 10cc ARF 60" Flight Talk 3:54 Hangar 9 Ultra Stick 10cc ARF 60 It would be nice to get a squadron of them flying together! Ten good modellers sat round a table together with basic tools could have one flying in an hour! Mike
  12. Very interesting summary indeed Mike. I have actually been looking at an Ultra Stick as a hack-type model. You see, I used to run a second hand (£45 bargain) Wot Trainer, until her tailplane succumbed to both my exuberant flying and her age. The problem I now have is that the market doesn't seem to be awash with new contenders. All of the new Wot 4' and Wot Trainers are too flimsy for my purposes, and wouldn't cope too well for very long. The other alternative is to immerse myself in the second hand market once more, but there are a few problems with that, the main ones being that they are nearly all crash damaged, too expensive, or would need new engine/radio gear etc. My Wot Trainer had a rx in it, and the faithful SC .46 pulled it around the field doing rolls and pulling gliders for nearly 2 years. The best hack model? Anyone would say the Wot 4, but I might just give the Ultra Stick a chance!
  13. A bit more spin on the Ultra Stick and its derivatives. I see Hobby King are punting a 1200mm class Ugly Stick type model for just £61 plus post. This is known as a Crusader 30E and runs with 9g servos. Flaps do not seem configured on the model so a basic four channel set up would be quite adequate for it. Primarily designed for electric power the model has more in common with the old Ugly Stick than the rather more advanced H9 Ultra Stick development. Obviously this little air-frame could be modified to IC power. I might get one of these models just to mop up a spare OS.35 that is kicking around here. The kit is ARTF and comes pre-covered. I see this model as a nice little "expendable" unit that might be ideal as a trainer. No doubt my grand daughter, Esme, would be tickled pink if I were to give her one of these. H-King Crusader 30E 1200mm Stick (47.3") (ARF) I`ve had it in mind to tackle another H9 Ultra Stick but this time to look at converting it to low wing. Images below show what other modellers have achieved. Conversion entails simply flipping the fuselage upside down (symmetrical wing section) and then re-locating the fin and rudder on the fuselage in an "inverted position. Whether this would affect ground handling to any significant degree needs thinking about. Others have also cut the wing in half on the centre line and added three degrees of dihedral to counter adverse yaw which has been known to occur on low wing Ultra Stick conversions. Conversions seen in the attached images seem to have been well done and look very sweet indeed. Naturally, I`m tempted to have a go myself. I have a pile of servos coming and recently acquired another pre-used Irvine 72 with good compression for £35. I bought the engine as spare stock. It isn`t as tidy visually as the brand new engine I bought from Rob Newman recently but fitted with a new anodised red cylinder head, it would then visually lift to almost new appearance. It could certainly be fitted to a low wing Ultra Stick and add another to my growing fleet. With the same white, black and florescent orange colour scheme, a low winger would certainly cause a visual double take. Its something to cogitate upon whilst I rebuild badly depleted finances! Mike
  14. Hi Guys. I built my first Hanger 9 Ultra Stick around June 2018. The model was spanking new onto the market then and the first imported kits were hard to find at the time. Mine came from Als Hobbies in Milton Keynes with next day delivery for £206 delivered. The owner of the business is "Big Al". His son is" little Ali"... but better known to us all as Ali Machinsky! When I was looking for my next model, I`d been impressed by the price, by its design heritage and the excellent Ultra Stick marketing videos put out by Hanger 9. It ticked all the right boxes and the videos on You Tube showed the model off to perfection with Ali explaining what he did to the original design to make it a brilliant performing all round model. I looked at loads of other competitive listings and reviews for models but kept coming back to the Ultra Stick as the one that "did it" for me. For me it would have been a "no brainer" not to have bought one. The original model was designed by Phil Craft as the Ugly Stick back in the 1960`s. The best known version at the time was the Graupner offering resplendent in a red covering and sporting German World War 1 black on white Maltese Cross decals. It was certainly eye catching and everyone desperately wanted one. Few could afford it and the price was hard to entertain when a Skyleader servos cost around £25! Remember in reading this that my recollection comes from about 1975. The kit was an eye watering price at about £375. To put this in perspective, in 1972 my Father bought a brand new Triumph 200 estate with over-drive. That cost ex-works, £2200. Buying one of those Graupner kits was therefore a rich mans privilege! Nearly sixty years later that the design has been modified in some form or other in shape or size and has been produced in kit form by over fifty different world wide manufacturers. It shows how popular the design became and how fond modellers are of it. It is as classic a design as a Keil Kraft Super Sixty but that kit was a mere fraction of the price of the Graupner Ugly Stick. So the latest offering from Hanger 9 is their second generation of their Ultra Stick model which they let Ali Machinsky loose upon to update and improve. Ali hales from Milton Keynes and was head hunted by Horizon Hobbies in view of his modelling abilities and exceptionally high standard of flying. Adding his name to their resident staff based in the USA at Illinois was probably the most cute business move they were ever likely to make. His picture on the box in which the model is packaged shows Ali clutching an Ultra Stick. A good name will greatly assist marketing credibility and sales. That is a well proven strategy and Big Al can`t get his hands on the Hanger 9 Ultra Sticks fast enough. The kits sell like hot cakes and I know from experience just why that is and why this model is becoming so popular in this latest rendition. The model comes pre-covered as an ARTF and is easily completed in around ten hours as either an electric or IC version with a power requirement of 10cc or greater. The kit includes everything needed to complete the model but not radio gear or any power package. All parts are to a good standard and there are no dodgy bits in either the parts package, covering or model structure. Put simply, a monkey could build this kit just with basic hand tools. My first example was built in my holiday caravan in the middle of the Kent Marshes without the use of mains electric power. You have to hinge and fix the control surfaces with CA adhesive, fit the control horns, run your own servo cables and/or use the piano wire inserts for pre-installed sheaths for rudder and elevators. Only when I installed a big 1.08 motor though with heavy nose weight, was I able to then fit the rudder and elevator servos in cut outs at the rear of the fuselage. The model is a light weight construction of laser cut ply and balsa. It is as tough as old boots and should last for years. The landing gear is made from painted aluminum and comes with a really nice pair of glass fibre spats (wheel pants) and bolt in axles. A ply support block is fitted and bonded into the spats and building the landing gear can be done in about half an hour. Three M4 cap bolts secure the undercart to the model. A pair of separate nylon type IC engine mounts also come with the kit with 104mm PCD bolt spacing and are capable of taking a typical 39mm crank case width 61 size motor. My No 1 model has an Irvine 72 fitted which is identical in physical size to the Irvine 61. A useful up-grade done without additional weight penalty. Covering is Ultracover/Profilm. White is the under lying base colour with black trim and very high visibility fluorescent red/orange panels which really does make this model stand out in a stormy late afternoon November sky. The colour scheme really does pop. Now having two original Ultra Sticks and an additional self built clone fuselage, I found the cost of the fluorescent Oracover plus post rather on the expensive side. A two metre roll cost £30 with postal charges! Tough, That is what it costs and if you want it, you just have to stump up the cash. Indeed Ali said the fluorescent orange was expensive on his video!! Inevitably being a production kit, the covering although of a general high standard will need further shrinking up with a film iron to bring up top a top standard. That is no big deal and probably no different from any other factory built kit offering. Ten minutes with a hot film iron sorts the defects out without difficulty. The white and black on my clone is Hobby King and costs about £9.50 for a five metre 600mm roll. It is a shame that HK don`t market the flourescent red/orange as a product. Which is best, HK or Oracover? The HK material is lighter, covers defects more easily, has a much higher gloss and is cheaper. It is very good indeed. Anyone doubting he statement should see my Fokker Tri-plane covered in HK material. It is a real eye puller. The kit comes with a motor mount template for a 52 size electric motor, a 10cc Evolution two stroke or a Saito 19ccR radial. Those were engine types fitted to Ali`s prototypes. The template then is only useful if you are fitting one of those three motors. The thrust lines are laser burned onto the engine bulkhead so it is easy to mark out for your own chosen power unit. Your drill your own holes in the bulkhead, then insert T-nuts on the rear of the bulkhead. Nothing difficult about that. The supplied fuel tank is said to be 15oz. That it is not and is more like 10oz in size....perhaps H9 mean US fluid ounces? Being wise to this anomaly, I elected to buy a Jamara 16oz tank for an additional £5 when I ordered my second model from Big Al. I was after extended fuel capacity for my 1.08 powered variant and I was sure I could squeeze the 16oz tank in through the tank hatch. However the struggle was too much and I cut away the tank access panel, installed the tank and epoxied the panel back onto the model with a little re-covering being needed to cover up my surgical intervention. With the benefit of my experience, I would have thought a 14oz tank would be a better selection and would avoid having to chop the model around as I did. That tank space will also accommodate one of the 4-Max 3700 6 cell Lipo batteries with ease but fitting a similar larger 4500 battery is a bit of a squeeze. Ali`s preferred electric power combo is a 52 motor with a 5000 5 cell Lipo. An under tank floor void area is large enough to take a 60amp ESC and UBEC. Fitting the large, inverted ASP 1.08 motor on this latest model (No 3) the front bulkhead mounting was a squeeze but easily accomplished using an ali OS 904 engine mount with 104mm PCD bolt spacing. This 904 mount has the same bolt spacing as the kit supplied nylon mounts which is convenient. My two IC variants are therefore capable of having either a 61-1.08 sized motor installed on either air-frame. The wing is one piece, very light in weight and is fitted with aileron and flaps. Four separate servos fit on lid mounted brackets held to the wing mounts by self tapping screws. Flap actuation is simple in as much as an electronic servo reverser is not used. One simply flips one of the servos over in one flap servo bay and moves the control rod and horn further along the wing about an inch. Control horn position bolt holes are even marked and only need drilling out to receive 2mm mounting nuts and bolts. Stout 3mm control rods for tail mounted, aileron and flap servos together with clevises, lock nuts and fuel tube security keepers are included in the kit as is a white propeller spinner. Apart from RC gear and control wires, engine and possibly a larger tank, there isn`t anything else you are likely to have to buy. Spare parts stock in Europe is presently a little slow and separate spares are on the expensive side. A wing replacement is around £116 and a fuselage about £94. Landing gear with spats are about £60. In the event of a major smash with any owned model, it makes much better economic sense to buy a complete new kit and keep the usable parts from a stuffed model as spares for the new one. Buying from the States is possible. Assuming the replacement landing gear and shipping cost includes carriage and VAT this end, I`ve managed to save £30 buying Stateside on these. However, pricing a complete new kit from the States was just £70 but the shipping cost was £132! It gets worse. A £6 decal sheet attracted a shipping cost of £169!!!!!!! It would seem sensible to buy from a UK supplier or from the German Horizon European depot. Shopping around for best deals is a bit futile. Prices for complete kits are generally within about £5 of a best deal. As said, my kits hae come from Als Models and their service is absolutely first class, advice is freely given and deliery on week days is next day via DPD. So far, the flying of this model type in my hands is rather limited. Steve Fysh at Riddlesdown MFC first flew the electric version in November last year. It was clear immediately that the model was as docile as it gets, aerobated well, landed incredibly slowly and would make an ideal trainer. I asked Steve if I needed to do anything to the model. Just like at the full sized Spitfire initial flight, the reply was "No, don`t touch it. Its perfect"! Now the additional models have arrived and await flight trials. Hopefully, I`ve manage to get an appropriate array of models that will lead me to A & B test levels and beyond. I suspect the .72 model will be similar in character to the ellctric model but be rather faster off the mark. As to the 1.08, model, well that might be quite exiting! Specs as follows, all with the same wing selectively fitted and included in the total all up weight of each model. (Wing weight 2.02Lb/0.9Kg) No 1. New and un-run Irvine 0.72/12cc motor with 12oz fuel tank. 2600 NiMh 6v power supply. 7 servos. Cloned, all ply fuselage. Dry weight 7.64Lbs/3.44Kg. No2. Electric. 5065-420Kv, 6 cell, 22.2v 3700mAh lipo, 60aa ESC and 5a UBEC. 6 servos. Push rod wire elevator & rudder actuation. All up weight 7.17Lbs/3.25Kg No 3. Low time, used ASP early model 1.08 with 160z Jamara tank.2600NiMh 6v power supply. 6 servos. Metal gear servos in tail. Dry weight 7.48Lbs/3.39Kg. Manufacturers suggested guide weight, 7Lb/3.18Kg. It would be interesting to know what Ali Machinchy`s Saito 19R3 radial equipped model weighed. Rather more than 7Lb, I would imagine. Comparing Irvine and Saito weights from published data, the Saito would appear to be almost exactly one pound heavier than the Irvine bolted to my No 1 model. I would suggest then that the Saito powered prototype cannot have weighed less that 8Lb. That model flies like a witch and lands slowly with or without flap deployment. Only on that particular prototype can one see tail mounted servos used. No doubt that was actioned to off set the extra weight of the big 19cc Saito in a similar fashion to my own 1.08 powered model where I have also used servo weight in the tail to achieve an acceptable CofG position. Whilst my models are all heavier than even Ali`s electric model, Ali was using a lighter 5 cell lipo in that model. What is also evident from examination of my own figures figures is that the 0.72 Irvine No 1 model is in fact heavier by some 2.5oz than the 1.08 No 3 model. This is perhaps easily explained. I built the clone fuselage solely from 2.5 and 3.2mm ply. Today I closely looked at the genuine kit fuselage construction. I had not noticed that the outer skins of the kit fuselage are made from 4mm balsa with ply only being used internally on fuselage doublers. One lives and learns! I also included two more rear fuselage frames in the clone which were perhaps un-necessary. I`m not concerned that the Irvine powered model weighs about half a pound more than the electric example. There is plenty of wing area available to support that extra weight. Ali`s Saito example which must hit the 8Lb figure flies without issue so there is no cause for concern. That said, the proof is always in the eating. Ali Mac deserves well earned praise for this model. There really can`t be an easier kit on the market to build. The model flies superbly literally straight out of the box. I`m looking forward to a great 2019 flying season and hope to get some serious flying going. In addition, I now have a date for getting the electronic sciatic pain killing gizmo fitted which might help my mobility and make me more inclined to spend time away from home. These models need to be flown not sat in my hangar. If any competent person would like to fly one or all of these models, then please come and talk to me about it. The more they fly, the happier I shall be. If I can source or build another wing, then we might see three in the air together. That would make quite a sight. Images here show what has been built. Comments as always would be appreciated. Cheers guys. Mike
  15. Ok. No problem. A nice un-used and seemingly never run vintage Irvine "Red Top" 0.72 sourced by the ever enthusiastic and helpful Rob Newman at Avicraft. Rob tells me it was a spare engine kept back from his days with the Panic Team. This motor has the Irvine 0.61 crankcase with a larger displacement cylinder liner and perhaps is also stroked at the con rod and crank. Rob supplied it to me at a reasonable price complete with what I believe to be a "quiet" silencer. I`m well pleased with the buy and thank Rob for his efforts in finding me a very nice engine. Now fitted to a scratch built Ultra Stick 60" fuselage with a 12oz tank in the hope it may be a suitable air-frame with which to take A and B tests this year. It currently shares the same wing from my electric version but when the slow banana boat arrives in Hamburg from Vietnam, Horizon have promised me the first available spare wing that arrives in their German warehouse. Availability is expected from mid-March 2019. Mike
  16. It has been month since I last posted on the progress of the Extra. It made its first public appearance at the AGM. I`m grateful to James for his complementary comments. Also to Sam and his father for the kindly phrased and very helpful comments and suggestions. This is the first time I`ve built such a large and heavy model so in this respect I`ve been breaking into new and unknown territory. The learning cure has been steep and the construction and fitting out of this model...well lets say eyewateringly expensive and at least double the cost of a typical 60" model. Some £800 seams like a good but may be conservative guestimate! I`ve tried not to count the cost but my pocket now seems somewhat empty!! At least me trousers are not so prone to falling down unexpectedly.... So where am I now with this over-sized project? Apart from checking CoG, the model is now ready for sound level checks. I`m assuming I`ll not be breaking any of our rules by doing so at Fickleshole? Please advise me if this is not the case. The Extra has been on a weight building spree with nothing more now to add. The Just Engines muffler system has been delivered and fitted. Perhaps a tad too long, side to side, but with a bit of cowl nibbling, the system fitted in a treat. My spec to JE was to build the quietest muffler system for a DLE 40 twin that they had ever made. It is their best shot at helping this model achieve the mandatory 82dB or less. It perhaps accounts for some of the weight at around a half pound. The model now tips the scales at the top specified weight stated by Midwest at 17.1Lb/7.78Kg. Where does all this weight come from in the last few hours of construction?! It just piles on!! This puts paid for ever any slim possibility that this model would ever be able to fly out of Fickleshole. So be it. Other arrangements are being made and I hope to be able to advise about that when and if I receive appropriate notification. Images here show the new JE muffler system supplied with over-length pipes to enable me to cut them to a precise length once the muffler can was fitted to the front bulk head. The long length of the exhaust after the muffler can be further truncated as required but at the moment acts as a useful carrying handle.... One thing is for sure. These old vintage kits are very much heavier that the latest manufacturers offerings. Updated constructional methods and laser cutting enable a bulk of excess material to easily be removed at the factory. Die stamping or scratch build DIY projects don`t seem to have such an advantage. Times and design technology move on with the years. I know Sam and his father were clearly quite shocked at the mass of this model. Typical of the era in which it was produced seemed to be the prognosis. Not much more I can say presently. Only the up and coming noise testing will now decide if this monster will ever be able to become a flyer. The idea is not an impossibility. Many other Midwest Extra examples of similar weight can be seen flying successfully on You Tube videos. Most of the footage would appear to come from the States. A natural back ground for a model of this parentage. As always guys, comments and observations gratefully received. Mike
  17. Roger. Totally delighted to hear from you. I had hoped we might hook up some time. (Late edit) Contact now established between us. Most useful. In short, I think your involvement and that of Rob Lewis saved the day as for as the Dr1 is concerned. It was obvious the incidence of the top wing was incorrect and you both came up with a solution which might otherwise have eluded us for many a long month. George has also seen this thread which he read with interest. A link to it was also sent to DW for their information and perusal. It must of hit the spot down there in China, because they immediately mailed and thanked me for the thread and requested I review their next production offering! I much enjoyed building the Dr1l but as said above, there were several issues needing important attention. The C of G issue was a glaring error. We all saw that immediately and corrected that in an instant. The tail-plane and rudder were other obvious areas for major attention. DW in my opinion failed to understand that the tail structure, together with the torsionally weak rear fuselage needs some slight increase in cross sectional area and a revision to structure based on the I-beam principle. I see revisions as very necessary to impart a reasonable degree of structural stiffness. That Rob and I both added tail braces was proof enough that there is a substantial defect in design as regards the tail-plane. Rob Lewis and I are currently both involved with trial building the latest DW offering...their Fiesler Storch which frustratingly also has the same type of rigidity issues. I`m a bit ahead on that build so have been able to ping Rob some images which I hope will assist him. Kits were sent to us both about three weeks ago for evaluation. I`ve had to address tail weakness on that model also. I have increased tail plane depth by 2mm by cross grain sheeting the basic DW structure to impart some torsional stiffness and strength. Indeed the leading edge of the elevators snapped on me as I lifted it off the building board...... One appreciates that the tail end of almost any model must be kept as light as possible, but DW in my opinion fail do not understand that this must not be at the expense of lack of intrinsic air frame strength or structural integrity. In the case of the Storch then, I have agreed to compile a report on my build findings once the model is finished. Presently, it is about 70% done and should be complete in about ten days. George has been kept in the loop as regards the build of the Storch and has seen images of the areas which concern me on that model. Having been involved with two DW offerings now, my personal opinion is that the design and kits are under-developed in several areas. This is a shame because the core product and concepts deserve to be winners. I`ve also built both the Taiwanese SFM SE5a and their Fokker DV11 which build perfectly and fly even better. If the offerings from DW and SFM were placed side by side for comparison, then DW would struggle badly in the contest and SFM would romp home as winners leaving DW to trail in the dust. If DW could only come to understand what modellers require and indeed demand, then they might then become competitive. I`d like DW to make better kits. Whether that will ever happen is debatable. They will have to run hard to catch up with SFM. The incidence issue was irksome and very concerning until you came up with the solution after which George pinged me a "heads up". We immediately spoke together about the problem. At the same time, I saw Rob Lewis`s RC Model Geeks videos and made contact with him. I was further able to brainstorm the problem. Thereafter, further words with George allowed him to see that there were issues with the development of the Dr1 kit and he took the matter up with DW direct. The problem is that the DW sales guy speaks English but the CAD man doesn`t! Thereby perhaps lays the nub of the matter. Details get lost and dumbed down in translation. "Chinglish" is not the ideal lingo with which to discuss aerodynamic subtleties!! Having seen Robs videos of his DR1 in action, I have to admit to being rather shocked by what transpired. Rob had a most difficult maiden flight with the DR1 which left him clearly shaken and verbally dumb-struck. The model did not fly well initially but Rob later did a little more work to help some of the problem areas. Then winter set in and the 2018 flying drew to a close. This coincided with the conclusion of my own model build with my model being moth-balled for the winter pending better flying conditions. I don`t think Rob has latterly flown his example since his final 2018 flying session concluded. So it sounds to me as if we all have dormant Dr 1 models awaiting the 2019 flying season. Frankly, with more that three hundred hours invested in the building of my example, I`m almost terrified to have it flown! Lets hope it doesn`t end up as my five year old Grand-daughter once described it as potentially "A very expensive but exquisite little ornament"! Good to chat on the phone this morning, Roger. All the best. Mike K
  18. Hi Mike, I have registered to make a comment on the above. I am actually the (rather antiquated) aerodynamicist that George mentions and possibly on of the first to build the triplane from his kit.. I have to say that I found the kit excellent although there were one or two niggles. I found Bob Lewis' videos on the build extremely useful and incorporated some of his suggestions. Bob raised the CG problem that I passed on to George As far as the wing incidence was concerned I had slight difficulty in persuading George that ther was a problem. Two quick sketches prove that there is no way that the wings can be set up correctly with front and back struts of equal length. Dancing wings have acknowledged that the CG position was wrong on the instruction sheet but have still to give a satisfactory answer to the strut length. Like you I sawed a bit off one strut, rebent it and drilled a hole. Mine was 15 mm compared top your 14mm. I was interested to see your enlarges rudder and will be keen to hear if it does the trick. (My flying days are over so I am waiting for a test pilot for my Fokker. Meanwhile I have been scribbling a Sopwith Pup to the same scale using many of the construction techniques on the triplaneSopwith camel.pdfSopwith camel.pdf
  19. Pilot Ben

    18 cylinder radial!

    Listen to that! The only slight drawback is that, at 22kg, it is just over 3 times the weight limit for a model at our field I couldn't find a specific price, but my estimate would probably be well north of £10,000, considering that a 7 cylinder OS radial sells for just under £5,000.
  20. For Sale: Sebart Sukhoi 29S 30E - Assembly Complete - Unflown With:- Hacker A30-10 Motor Hacker X55 ESC 4 x HS-65 Servos 2 x EON28 2550Mah Lipo Spectrum AR600 receiver All for £100.00 - Buyer collects. I never did catch the electric bug!! - Need space for new (IC) models. Best Regards, =Adrian=
  21. Does anyone have a new or good used .61 two stoke glow motor they wish to dispose of at a reasonable price? I`m in the market for one to go on another 60" Ultra Stick. Perhaps give me a call if you have anything suitable please. 01883625406 Thanks, Mike Kennedy
  22. Here is the CAP658 CAA guidance document to which James referred. It makes interesting reading...perhaps to be absorbed in slow time. It is a fair sized document to be digested. CAP658 And this as a PDF link CAP 658 Model aircraft safety guidance Mike
  23. That regulation refers to any model that is capable of having a fail safe set and it really comes down to the user (ie us) to know the laws and regulations that we are required to fly to. All the information is available from the BMFA, either in the handbook or the CAP 658 publication. As recent events have showed, we must all be seen to be flying to the law and regulations and ignorance of these widely published documents is no excuse unfortunately these days.
  24. Beyond my knowledge, Ben. Perhaps James could kindly comment further. Mike
  25. I wonder then, how some of the rtf ultra micro models fit into that? My first model actually went to full throttle on loss of signal, and I could barely fly, let alone worry about something I did not know about. There ought to be a set of regulations on the packaging of models like that, or perhaps radios, similar to the packaging of air rifles I would have thought...
  26. It is a legal requirement for ALL powered aircraft (whatever their weight) fitted with a receiver capable of operating in failsafe mode, to, as a minimum reduce the engine speed to idle on loss or corruption of signal. In other words nearly all modern radios have this function so nearly every model you fly must have the failsafe set correctly, whether the model is greater or less than 7kg. This is legally required by CAP 658 and has been for some time. Failsafe operation should be checked on a regular basis. This is also one of the mandatory questions that are asked for the A and B Certificates.
  27. Sounds good. In my opinion, as much as having the engine cut is good, I always prefer to keep it idling so that there is a change of recovery. I also can't imagine there's much of a difference being hit by a 7kg lump of metal vs a 7kg lump with an idling engine - either way your day is going to get a lot worse...
  1. Load more activity


UK Web Hosting | PC Repairs Croydon | Cloud Hosting in London | UK Dedicated Servers | UK Reseller Hosting | UK Shared Hosting

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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