Jump to content
Please be aware of scammers when using the Sale/Wanted forum areas

stu knowles

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    832

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by stu knowles

  1. stu knowles
    I've never been a fan of four stroke motors, Expensive, reduced power, prone to throwing props. I don't buy into the noise somehow being 'better' as neither sound remotely like any full size aeroplane that I've ever heard. Two stroke, simple and reliable. Fly with small diameter prop for high speeds or oversize for noise sensitive sites or WW1 / vintage. Tried both but don't own any four stroke motors at all now.   stu k Edited By stu knowles on 29/03/2013 09:14:22
  2. stu knowles
    Well done Bart. Good idea stu k
  3. stu knowles
    Very nice. Beautiful design & build What is the metallic covering that you are using.?? You know that it would be a crime to only produce one of these models. Methinks that you need to go into the kitting business. stu k
  4. stu knowles
    Not too many but it is surprising how many have thought that a four engined multi strutted biplane airliner is worth the effort. There have been a few on the LMA circuit. One beaut at around 17ft that wil be flying this year with Ian Redshaw and possibly one even bigger next year. I also meant to say that all my engines are bolted on square, no side or down thrust. Will 25s be enough?? hard to say. I have a 90 inch Chris Golds Lancaster on 2x 25fp and 2 x 20fp but that weighs in around 18lbs and a lot less drag. You could try 2x 40 on the lower nacelles as a halfway house. I agree with you, I would have a few 'fast taxi' runs when the ground is hard. It will fly at slow speeds because it has a massive wing area but I have stalled mine a couple of times by attemping to climb too quickly and only got away with it by having a fair reserve under the left thumb. If yours gets airborne just give it time to get some hight under it before turning and keep the turns gentle using rudder as the main directional control. Let us know how you get on. cheers stu k
  5. stu knowles
    Twin needle carbs Set the main jet for max rpm and the adjust a 'tad' richer, say 1/8th turn. Let the engine idle. Open the throttle, if it coughs & splutters as it picks up speed. - too rich. If it just dies, too lean. Screwing the idle needle in = leaner, out is richer. This will get you to the right ball park. Fine adjustment, - let the engne idle and then pinch the fuel line just as it goes into the carb between finger and thumb to cut off the fuel supply. If the engine slowly speeds up and gains significant revs before slowing down. - too rich, adjust the low speed needle by 1/4 turn each time. If the idle rpms just slow down when the fuel is cut off, - too lean. Adjust the low speed needle 1/4 turn richer and retry until the rpms rise by a modest amount and then slowly die. This is about right  Go past the 'right setting' just to prove that the system works and you are getting the expected results. Then go back and find the exact right setting refining the adjustment to 1/8th turn   Repeat the whole process from setting the main jet to double check and the engine should idle reliably and open up cleanly. Once main and idle needles are set just fuel and fly. Don't be a needle twiddler every flight. If you find that the engine becomes unreliable, clean the carb and supply line and start again. Perhaps I should have started by saying that make sure that the carb is thoroughly clean and back flushed before begining. Use clean and filtered fuel. Make sure any inline filters are also clean. Without getting into a fuel discussion , -Use  a quality fuel with 5 or 10 percent nitro. If hard up, use straight fuel but good quality. I only use synthetic oils. Other may have a different view but this is mine and I've come to rely on it. In time you will make up your own mind but it is worth trying a good branded fuel as described and checking if there's  a difference  with lesser fuels. Have a try and let us know how you get on stu k Edited By stu knowles on 27/03/2013 20:25:25 Edited By stu knowles on 27/03/2013 20:31:30 Edited By stu knowles on 27/03/2013 20:32:18
  6. stu knowles
      Hello Peter, This is my '42, 120 inch 4 x 46 two strokes and near 35lb. A 30 year old hanger queen which we took on, intrigued to see if it would fly. After running out of excuses we finally took it out to commit aviation and to everyones surprise, it flies beautifully. The CG was guessed at about 25% top wing chord but TBH with so much wing area and a long tail moment, it has all of the attributes needed to fly well. This one is adequately powered but you have to allow time to let it accellerate before 'applying to climb' and by the same token it has considerable built in drag, more so with four idling props. It needs to be flown all the way down in a powered glide, only shutting down to idle as the wheels touch. If slowed too much it has a sharp stall but it flies in a steady and stately manner as befitting the prototype. Give it a go, you might be pleasantly surprised by how it performs. stu k more pics here http://www.donvalleymfc.co.uk/page30.html   Edited By stu knowles on 27/03/2013 12:30:42
  7. stu knowles

    stu knowles posted a gallery image in Member Albums

  8. stu knowles
    I have never belonged to a club which ruled against flying alone. If anyone has doubt about their ability to operate models alone, then they should not. If anyone feels that they can operate alone, then unless there are very site specific reasons, they should be free to do so. Personally, I can't think of any valid reason not to fly alone stu k
  9. stu knowles
    Agreed about the Concorde build article, I though just the same when I saw the pics in the mag. Is that a possibility?? stu k
  10. stu knowles
    Aerotec kits were rather known more for selling the boxtop label than the contents. The trade stand at shows contained many fine examples of their stock but none flew (at the same shows) that I ever saw. Sadly, many of the reviews published in the mags were from the pen of the guy who was the manufacturer. (Not a high point for those mags that did that) The propensity is to come out heavy and be an awkward and fiddly build. However, build it with that in mind, -go for finished & scale like rather than trying for museum scale and you are in with half a chance. If I had the Mosquito kit at not much money, I would build it, put in simple retracts, probably cover in brown paper/pva and put on a light finish and give it a try. More detail can always be added later. Build thread here essential! sk
  11. stu knowles
    Yes also been following it all the way through. I don't like to keep adding posts that don't really say much but great subject, love your design & manufacturing skills, watching with interest to see the progress. stu k
  12. stu knowles
    I doubt that, I'm 99% sure that mine is slightly behind the marker on the wing which is the reccomended point. either way it's quite tolerant. I've been flying my Pup'tr today. it has to be one of the easiest and most user friendly models ever. stu k
  13. stu knowles
    There is this, said to be at 1/6 scale search ebay number 150959988309 Phil at fighteraces does a good range of 1/5 ordinance but I doubt that you'd want a full load for a skyraider stu k
  14. stu knowles
    I don't understand your negativity. I suspect that if there was no mag there would be just as many complaints that people didn't know what the BFA does, what does it do for me and so on. The mag keeps members informed and involved. It provides a vehicle to show the expanse of aeromodelling, it's many aspects and variations. The event calendar contains many opportunities for expanding tour personal hobby and getting out and about. I accept that some don't like it but please take on board the counter view that there are many who take it for what it is and enjoy the content. stu k
  15. stu knowles
    I don't think that 22inch three blade and 'reasonable price' are ever going to fit into the same sentence! Just as a matter of interest, why do you want a three blader?? I've not found any advantage with the admittedly one or two that I have tried. stu k
  16. stu knowles
    If I break one of mine I am usually gutted about it, although it wouldn't stop me pulling another aeroplane out straight away and getting back into the saddle. As for the wreckage, I tend to put it away in a corner for as long as it takes me to get over it, and then rebuild it. Even bad wrecks rebuild quicker than a new build. I have a DR1 that has been waiting more than 6 months although watching Waldo Pepper the other day brought it back to the top of the list stu k   Edited By stu knowles on 23/01/2013 09:56:07
  17. stu knowles
    I'm sure that there are many clubs and groups flying off land without the benefit of planning permission. In fact I know of one who rents the land from the council and has done so since 1995 and yet has no planning permission. It was discussed at the outset with the peole who arranged the lease and the advice was, just get on with what you are doing, don't go for planning permission unless someone else raises it. In retrospect, that was good advice. There's nothing to stop you setting up a flying group anywhere, If no-one objects, carry on. If you do get complaints, most likely these will be about noise. The lack of PP may well be one of the tools used to shut you down but the odd thing is that if you HAVE planning permission, it will not protect you from complaints nor will it keep you flying in the face of noise complaints. stu k Edited By stu knowles on 13/01/2013 11:20:28
  18. stu knowles
    I too turned to 'S & L' as one of the first must read items in the mag every month. I have always felt proud to be one of his 'OBE's, he was kind enough to reply to one of my letters about a model based on a Burt Rutan design with a delta wing and canard foreplane and i have never missed an opportunity to build and fly anything out of the ordinary ever since. On a more conventional note, I always lusted after PR's Striker design and bought an old mag which featured the plan review only last week. With retracts and a good 90 it will be perfect. I had already thought that I would copy Peters original psuedo RAF colour scheme. Genuinely sad to hear of his passing, An aeromodelling great. stu k
  19. stu knowles
    roundels I have completed this model now. I had a couple of failures in that I started with two reference marks 'outside ' the roundel which didn't work. I them moved on to a marked centre spot on the masks and on the model. Using this method I masked the outer perimetre and sprayed it all white. I then masked out the white circle and using paper tape masked off the red centre and painted the outer blue, let that dry and then peeled off the mask on the red, covered everything else and sprayed in the red. It all worked pretty well. I'll take a pic later and post it here. I've a feeling that one of the american forums has an ongoing thread of vynil cutting files although I can't find it at the moment My next project is a 1/6th Luftwaffe subject so I'll be working out how to do balkencruz next stu k
  20. stu knowles
    Sorry, I have never understood the assertion that somehow four stoke motors are more 'scale' I've used three or four but currently own none. Even my Puppeteer has a two stroke, large prop & good silencer, sounds every bit as good and to me, far less expense and hassle. Have to agree with previous post, soemthing like a zenoah 20, plenty of power, easy starting and clean CLEAN!! stu k
  21. stu knowles
    For open framework, I haven't found anything to beat Solartex, For sheeted surfaces which are to be painted, brown paper / pva is excellent, I don't understand why it isn't used much more commonly. stu k
  22. stu knowles
    if you have good budget, this fits your bill nicely http://www.ytinternational.co.uk/swordfish/swordfish.htm   Edited By stu knowles on 22/11/2012 13:24:38
  23. stu knowles
    That would involve planning ahead! Honestly, I didn't think that I would have still been there in the pitch dark. stu k
  24. stu knowles
    I flew a LimboDancer type fun fly model with glow sticks banded to each wingtip, one between the wheels and one under the fus at the back. I started at dusk and kept flying into the pitch darkness. I was amazed at how easy it was, easy to keep a reference on the model, easy to aerobat and when landing, the glow from the sticks, though dim, was enough to illuminate the ground just before touchdown. What was difficult was refueling and finding all your stuff in the dark!! I guess a torch would have been sensible but ruined your night vision. Fitting a few LEDs would work on any model and be so much more visible than a glow stick. There's only one way to find out for yourself.... stu k
  25. stu knowles
    I would take a slightly different tack in that, whatever you build it has to be something that you really like and want to see finished and flying. If your heart isn't in it, it may never get finished. Second point, a so so model that is finished and flying will motivate you for the next build, whereas there are unfinished master scale models in sheds all over the country. So I say, pick something that you want to fly, get stuck in and do something every day, get it flown. If you like it, you can always add more detail later.. a scale model is never finished You don't say which plans you are looking at, If you are thinking warbird with full house gear, go up around 72 to 85 inch span. If you want to go smaller, keep it simple and light, although a warbird with dangly wheels never looks good so retracts are a must. If you think back through the builds that you have already done, the only difference to a plan build is that you have to cut your own parts. That usually boils down to a set of ribs and a few formers, sort those out before you start and there's not much difference to what you have done before. Be interested to hear what you go for.... I always think that trawling through lists of plans and making the decision is one of the most pleasureable aspects of building. stu k
×
×
  • Create New...