Jump to content

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

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

Pilot Ben

Club Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Pilot Ben last won the day on November 19 2018

Pilot Ben had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

1 Follower

About Pilot Ben

  • Rank
    Air Commodore

Recent Profile Visitors

1,133 profile views
  1. That looks very smart Mike! Do you know yet what the rough AUW could be?
  2. Congratulations on passing your A test, Mike! The Stick looks good, despite it's little skirmish with the tree. I wonder, does the Hangar 9 30cc Ultra Stick appeal?
  3. 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!
  4. 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.
  5. 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...
  6. 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...
  7. Shame about the model being over 7kg Mike, although it does look very sharp indeed! With regards to the kill switch; whilst some models at our field DO fly without the correct failsafe set up, it is highly unadvisable to do so. This failsafe protocol also become mandatory and enforced above 7kg too, so you will need that to kick in when the tx turns off. However, I'm not sure if it states that the engine must be killed, or simply idled, perhaps a check in the bmfa handbook could clarify? I actually tried setting up a failsafe, where when signal was lost, the engine would remain idling for a few seconds, in case the signal came back. This was changed however for an instant cut, and a gentle up elevator. I know that Rod used to use full defections on all surfaces too. B
  8. Looking very smart! Do you have an approximation of the flying weight yet?
  9. No problem Mike. The only thing that I failed to mention was where I obtained the pricing and specifications from All were quoted from Just Engines -(https://www.justengines.co.uk) I can say also that I've only ever had a positive experience with them, so they may be worth a look. Keep us updated on your progress, and I promise not to moan about servos! B
  10. I can't comment on the specific details, but most of the engine working out I do (or sometimes eyeballing) is based on the displacement of the engine. With regards to the "ASP 1.08 vs ASP 1.80" argument - The ASP 1.08 has a displacement of 17.2cc, and weight of 862g (depending on the age of your engines), and the ASP 1.80 has a displacement of 29.9cc, and a weight of 1528g. This means that although the 1.08 is pretty much "half" the size (56%), it is also pretty much half the weight (56%). However, this doesn't mean that the relationship is linear, a good example being the OS 35 and the ASP 36 engines that have powered two of my cougars. Whilst the OS was a 5.8cc engine weighing 280g vs the ASP at 5.9cc and 354g, the OS' performance was pitiful compared to the ASP'. I have since learnt from eyeballing, and this error cost me around £200 to rectify, as well as some modifications to the model. I would think that a 1.08 is possibly too small a powerplant, especially seeing as it looks to be quite a chunky build. A 1.60 would cut it fine, although it should be ok I would have thought. As for the 1.08 as a starting point, a good rule is to "start as you mean to go on" I.E pick an engine and stick with it. You won't enjoy the model if you're constantly buzzing around the ground at full throttle Keep in mind also the important factor of the balance of the model. For context, your 1.08 weighs in at 862g, whereas the Moki 1.80 is a much chunkier 1170g (308g difference). Whilst this doesn't sound like much on a model weighing around 6.35-7.7kg, it will most likely make a difference, especially considering the position of the wing (moments + pivots). On the topic of weight, keep in mind also that the maximum weight limit at Fickleshole is 7kg, so I would suggest that you would want to try and keep the model as light as possible, seeing as you are sailing in shallow waters with the models quoted weight. Finally, with regards to your desire to fit a twin cylinder powerplant - One of the most viable options would be the ASP 1.60 FS twin. However, it weighs approx. 1256g, and costs quite a healthy £430. Lot's to think about B
  11. Quite a tidy kit, Mike. With regards to the engine; I think that I'm right in saying that Moki engines aren't all that easy to come by, and if you stick "Moki 1.80 2-stroke" into Google or the like you'll see what I mean. As an alternative, I believe that ASP make a 1.80 2-stroke that retails for around £200, or if that doesn't appeal an ASP 1.80 FS (that is of "similar" power) goes for around £280. Look forward to the build, B
  12. I can personally vouch for the FrSky systems too. I know that me being younger and more adept at these sorts of things does perhaps bias my opinion slightly, but I really did find my X9D unbelievably easy to set up. For example, I cannot begin to work any of the similar systems from Futaba, Speaktrum, etc without consulting a manual first. The other advantage to the FrSky system is that it can be as complex as you want to make it. Price is also a large factor as you say, and by way of comparison, a brand new QX7 is only £103 as opposed to a second hand 7C for potentially £90. Even a very capable X9D (such as mine; 5 years of my flying style and still going strong) is around £165. Food for thought perhaps, and more details can be found here - https://www.t9hobbysport.com/rc-gear/frsky-taranis-transmitter
  13. Finally found it! This is what I believed was going on -
  14. At 1:06 is that the camera frames in time with the rotation of the blades, or are they just not moving? If they're not, then that is pretty fantastic!
  15. I can't wait to see it in the air Mike, it looks fantastic already! As you say the kit really isn't cheap, but I think it's one of those things that you really do "get what you pay for", especially taking into consideration the time it took to design a kit like that. As Dave rightly said, you certainly do have more patience than the rest of us combined! Indeed I find that I tend to get fed up with one 30 inch wing, so I cannot imagine how you've managed to do three 60 inch ones You seem to be building up quite the collection

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.