Roger Jones 3

Posted by Ian Perry on 03/02/2021 19:52:01: I have been thinking about a new Futaba transmitter. I had been thinking about the 16sz, but I have just seen the announcement for the brand new 16iz. This looks like a really nice transmitter, with the benefit that the aerial is embedded in the handle, rather than the normal position, that easily gets broken. Looking at a forum post and then looking at the manual download, the 16iz WILL NOT work in the UK (EU) if you are using FASST or FASST7CH. So do not purchase this transmitter if using older receivers. I have 12 !! The EU has changed the rules, and Futaba do not have grandfather rights to work with old FASST receivers. The newer gear works like Spektrum with unique model memory allocated to each receiver to prevent 'the wrong model' being flown in error. The transmitter DOES support FASST but not within the EU !! Seems we are still included !   Looks like a 16sz for me, with a twig that's likely to get broken over time !       Edited By Ian Perry on 03/02/2021 19:59:38 Edited By Ian Perry on 03/02/2021 20:01:48 I just checked the Ripmax site. Both the announcement on the front page and the list of transmitters. The 16IZ does support FASSTest. FASST is not mentioned. Futaba's idiotic "Let's confuse 'em with our pointless protocol soup" strikes again!! Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 04/02/2021 07:59:34

Posted by Zflyer on 04/02/2021 01:35:24: I have used to make power pod for depron planes. Servo holders for.mini servos and some assorted objects for my grandchildren. If purchased solely to make a plane it would never have been bought. Re the walled comment as i said new to this but yes make the object then duplicate reduce size change to hole and fit into object. I appreciate some readers of this wont have a clue what i have said. But then i dont understand some of the stuff i read on here. Each of us have different interests skills and disciplines. But we all love the hobby. My original query was can you use a digital pen instead of a mouse. I get not everyones cup of tea and i am not the most proficent builder but if this helps then its worth it for me. OK. Actually I notice that not even a SINGLE person has made any attempt whatsoever to answer your question, and that includes me, I know nothing of Tinkercad but I CAN answer part of your question, so here goes. A pen and tablet will ALWAYS be better for making marks on a screen than a mouse. (Whether one will work with Tinkercad I don't know, but it should). Always? Try writing your name with a pen on a piece of paper. It's fine, you have been doing it since you were a child. Now try to write your name on your computer screen with the mouse.  There are several ways of doing this with software that comes as a standard part of Windows, such as 'Paint'. It will be shaky and all over the place. A complete mess. Probably unreadable if you tried to do it normal 'handwriting' size. There's your answer to "Is a pen and tablet better than a mouse?" YES!!! (Make sure the pen actually draws a line on the tablet as well as the main screen as  'invisible' writing is quite hard to do.) Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 04/02/2021 07:23:37

Posted by John Stainforth on 03/02/2021 17:52:47: Perhaps too much is made of the differences between pen and paper and CAD: they are just tools. What I have observed is that people who are good at drawing (with pencil and paper) take to CAD very quickly and effectively, whereas people who are bad at drawing make lousy CAD'ers. Once one has become proficient at CAD it is faster than drafting by hand and much easier to achieve accuracy because everything can be tied to precise reference points and datum lines. A simple model aircraft can be designed and drawn very quickly with CAD. Operations like lofting are way easier with CAD. Then there are all the special CAD operations, such as booleans for adding and subtracting objects from each other. In CAD, one works not only in 2D views, but also in 3D perspective views, and the more proficient one becomes, the more one works in the 3D views. Then there are all the other fantastic benefits of being able to print out precise plans of any part of the plane very quickly, downloading files directly for laser cutting and making 3D printed parts. Personally, I think it is no contest. CAD wins almost every time! Edited By John Stainforth on 03/02/2021 17:53:49 I have noticed on a couple of other forums that we see many 'wonderful' potential designs, often scale, that the designer get so wrapped up with the 'amazing' things he can do with CAD that he totally loses sight of the objective and the plane never get built. And I was one of the developers of the very first CAD system (IBM/Dassault), current versions of which are the 'world standard' in almost every major engineering corporation, cars, aircraft, space, ships, atomic reactors, etc. So I am not against it, I just don't think the time is worth it on simple stuff like a model plane you are only going to build one of, just for yourself. Pleased users can get over-enthusiastic about their favoured tool.  Just like Apple fanboys who rave about the complicated and expensive  iPhone but never say  or text anything worthwhile on it. The model plane gets to be just an excuse to use the CAD stuff. After all, it's not much use for anything else  around the house, like a pencil  can be.  CAD  can't clean, mow the lawn,  or post  on a forum, can it? And it's exactly the same with laser cutters or 3D printers.  You don't need any of that stuff to  make  a couple of good model planes a year. The blokenext door is a garden  power  tool nut.  He's got everything. Even a powered wheelbarrow. He rarely does any actual gardening, just plays with his  tools. Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 04/02/2021 00:12:37

Posted by Ian Perry on 03/02/2021 19:52:01: I have been thinking about a new Futaba transmitter. I had been thinking about the 16sz, but I have just seen the announcement for the brand new 16iz. This looks like a really nice transmitter, with the benefit that the aerial is embedded in the handle, rather than the normal position, that easily gets broken. Looking at a forum post and then looking at the manual download, the 16iz WILL NOT work in the UK (EU) if you are using FASST or FASST7CH. So do not purchase this transmitter if using older receivers. I have 12 !! The EU has changed the rules, and Futaba do not have grandfather rights to work with old FASST receivers. The newer gear works like Spektrum with unique model memory allocated to each receiver to prevent 'the wrong model' being flown in error. The transmitter DOES support FASST but not within the EU !! Seems we are still included !   Looks like a 16sz for me, with a twig that's likely to get broken over time !         Not the EU screwing us as Pete said, more likely that Ripmax, being the Futaba 'hub' for the entire EU, is not bothering to import the 'world' one for the UK. It also means that if you want more than eight channels you are now forced to use the pointless and expensive S-Bus as the FHSS receivers only support a maximum of eight 'regular' channels. Oh well, I was going to buy some Futaba gear as an alternative to the Multiplex stuff I use now so I don't have all my eggs in one basket. That's the end of that idea. I'm glad I caught your post before spending the money. Thanks.   Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 03/02/2021 23:13:54

Posted by Robin Colbourne on 03/02/2021 13:11:56: Posted by David Ramsden on 03/02/2021 10:37:18: So. What I'm going to do (I think) is design a 70" Deacon/PD Parasol hybrid. This won't please the vintage purists but never mind. I love designing. Go for it David! This is your hobby to enjoy the way you want. We wouldn't have much choice if we only built what was already out there. My Dad really enjoyed the vintage style models, but always used to say, "I didn't build other people's designs in the 1940s & 50s, so why should I do so now?" You never know; if your design looks good and performs well, we might be seeing the plan in RCM&E one day. With regard to Piers comments and your desire for appearance and aerobatic performance, why not build two wings, one with, say Clark Y section and vintage-style dihedral, the other with a semi-symmetrical section and minimal dihedral. If you look at a Cessna 190, lack of dihedral is not necessarily unattractive with a high wing. That's rather nice. The Cessna C34 (I S Cameron Aeromodeller March 1960/Outerzone) is similar.

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 03/02/2021 12:31:28:   Aircraft display a yaw/roll couple, some more than others (further effect of yaw is roll and visa versa). Rudder/elevator models with lots of dihedral have a very strong Y/R couple, necessary as they don't have ailerons. Ailerons cause adverse yaw but how much depends on several factors. So, for example, left aileron applied to your vintage style aeroplane will cause a bit of right adverse yaw, because of the drag from the down going right aileron. The right hand yaw will cause a roll to the right because of the strong yaw/roll couple with the large dihedral. Consequently the ailerons are rather ineffective and only increasing the aileron throw will exacerbate the problem. As Rich2 says, differential aileron mitigates this to some degree and in fact there is nothing to stop you programming in 100% differential aileron to your transmitter or indeed coupled aileron and rudder to counteract the adverse yaw. However, is it not easier to build the wing with less dihedral in the first place?   On my Junior 60, with the standard 'very steep' dihedral and 'inset' ailerons near the tips with arbitrarily chosen 50% differential the ailerons worked fine from day one. So much so that I had to 'INCREASE the rudder travel as I like balanced controls (eg half stick with EITHER ailerons or rudder gives an equal turn and the amounts of turn are still equal with full stick). Ailerons not working well on such models is not any kind of theory, it's just guff put about by those who have not tried it. They work fine but it is nice to remove the associated drag-caused adverse yaw (for those who don't know how to do coordinated turns or cant be bothered). On a 'full size' old light aircraft I often fly it's fun to keep a landing approach on the runway centreline using ONLY the aileron adverse yaw and not using the rudder at all. Though I would not recommend it to the inexperienced or those of a nervous disposition. As for reducing the dihedral, it is not only completely unnecessary but one of the main POINTS of keeping the steep dihedral is to keep the vintage appearance and 'atmosphere' of this originally 'free flight' model. It is one of the Junior 60's distinctions and without it you had just as well build something else. As for "easy" it's no harder than a lesser dihedral. Anyway 'easy' is not necessarily an objective in a model. Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 03/02/2021 15:54:34

Posted by MattyB on 03/02/2021 10:22:57: Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 03/02/2021 06:54:15: Hundreds of of billions of permutations, inspectors working 24/7/365 (also bear in mind only the police and customs can seize stuff), registration take up of about 10% of 'eligible' drones sold, and when I renewed mine direct rather than via the BMFA I got my old number starting with 'OP' not the 19 digit one starting with 'GBR'. I agree the new format is overly complex, but the reason you got your old number back this time is completely explainable. When the OP ID requirement came in last year there was no EU wide std format agreed (a strange omission at that stage, but there you go). Since then that has been remedied. The cutover date for implementation of the new numbering was Jan 1 2021, so if your renewal was due earlier (which yours must have been) you got your old number back for one more year. Anyone renewing after Jan 1 (which includes you when you renew for 2022) will get a new format "GBR" number which will remain with you into the future. It is annoying to have to renumber our planes I agree, but you should not have to do it again. Having an EU wide standard is in our interests on this occasion as it will mean you don't have to re-register locally if flying in another EU country as a guest. Edited By MattyB on 03/02/2021 10:34:27 That all 'makes sense' (as does your post below it) if you accept that any of it makes any sort of sense at all. I don't care about 'abroad' as my wife and I avoid it. Ferries, airports and officials are more hassle that abroad is worth.   Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 03/02/2021 13:30:07

Posted by Peter Miller on 02/02/2021 18:32:23: I always use a large sheet of paper. The reason is that at full size a slight change of curve or angle can transform a model from and ugly duckling to a swan. You can also be sure that you equitpment such as betteries etc will fit. Among other 'computer' stuff I worked on computer aided design (and also manufacturing) for many years. In fact I was one of the developers of the very first one - a combined IBM and Dassault effort. With a little drafting ability, pencil and paper, compasses, etc, you can do it MUCH quicker by hand for a simple thing such as a model plane.

David, A while ago I looked through the entire Outerzone 'Free Flight Sport' and 'RC Sport' sections for inspiration. It takes less time than you might think and with the opportunities for sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll currently restricted, why not?

Posted by Denis Watkins on 03/02/2021 06:38:09: The authorities have the advantage now, with registration and online intelligence to track interlopers from flying in areas that they should not be, and can bring the model down, to safeguard the public, then can track the culprit to their front door. None of that is true now and it won't be until a very long time in the future,

Hundreds of of billions of permutations, inspectors working 24/7/365 (also bear in mind only the police and customs can seize stuff), registration take up of about 10% of 'eligible' drones sold, and when I renewed mine direct rather than via the BMFA I got my old number starting with 'OP' not the 19 digit one starting with 'GBR'. THE ENTIRE THING IS A TOTAL NONSENSE.

Posted by Mike T on 03/02/2021 00:52:31: Posted by Andrew Calcutt on 02/02/2021 20:56:33: The CAA assumes it owns the airspace,I would imagine they will sell to the highest bidder,but this is a commodity that they do not own. Correct. It belongs to the landowner. But it is controlled by the CAA as an arm of government. I own the land my house is built on, but what I can do with it is controlled by the local authority, as an arm of government - ulimately to the benefit of everybody. I don't have to like it, but I pretty much have to lump it... Good. I'm part of "everybody" so I shall fly wherever I like

Posted by David Ramsden on 02/02/2021 15:43:58: personally I think designing your own 'vintage' model is a bit phoney   Thanks for the great tips Roger. It's great to know that ailerons are effective without reducing the dihedral that helps give vintage models such character. I read differing opinions about strip ailerons and barn doors. There are plenty of examples of both so I guess there's not much to choose between them in some respects. The Debutante has a lot of straight lines and I think it's trike u/c makes it look quite modern. The Southerner has a lovely fuselage but I've never liked polyhedral wings. Sorry. I agree that designing a model in 2021 and calling it "vintage" would be phoney. Maybe calling it vintage-style or classic-inspired would be more acceptable. If I design my own maybe I'll call it 'The Phoney'. As I said at the outset, I have a pretty fixed idea of what I want. I just thought it was worth putting up a forum post just encase it already exists. The Southerner original kit and later plans are arranged to build either poiyhedral or straight wings. I'm NOT going to try ailerons should I ever build a polyhedral one but they do look more 'vintage'. The Debutante's very short coupled trike undercarriage means it almost always tips over onto a wing tip when taxying. I made a new (unenlarged) rc one simply because it was the first free flight power model I ever built. Way back in the early 60's. My latest effort is an Aeronca Sedan from the 1950's Mercury kit plan. (I always liked it but could not then afford the sixty-three shillings the kit cost back in the day) I flies fine but is a bit of a disappointment in the 'vintage' area. It merely shows that balsa/ply construction techniques have not really changed at all. I have made the wing one piece, unlike the original. Other recent efforts have been enlarged 'classic' control line stunt models converted to rc. They were all originally designed to look especially attractive to the stunt judges and though I don't compete in anything I have been careful to keep that important point with the original colour schemes, etc. . They make great 3D planes and are also fine on low rates for regular aerobatics. So far I've done the KK (Dave Platt) Spectre, the Bill Werwage Ares, and the Juri Sirotkin Spacehound, the latter with fully enclosed exhaust and retracts rather than the original spats. At least they are something different from the usual run of the mill stuff, Cheers.   Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 16:51:35

Posted by Martin Harris - Moderator on 02/02/2021 14:41:33: First, consider whether your charger measures IR accurately. I feel that comparison of results is often only valid with your own results unless you measure with a high end IR meter. That looks to be a fairly well balanced pack. I subscribe to the KISS principal on this. Does the model perform adequately? If so, use the pack until it doesn't... Of course, it's different if you're doing competitive flying where selection of the best packs may be critical for success but for 99% of us, does it matter? Yeah. My Thunder Power charger can measure the IR but I've never bothered. What's the point of measuring stuff that works ok at the moment as you would have chucked it if it didn't? And which you can't change anyway?

Posted by Zflyer on 02/02/2021 13:47:50: Why not have a go at a hovercraft. I have had a go with a scratch build foam board hovercraft. I am having trouble with it turning on its access suspect it may be a thrust angle issue as it spins to the right. The thrust is provided with an EDF mounted directly onto a servo!. as i say its a scratch build bit of fun. Might give you something to have ago at and test the brain cellls.. Put some about 45 degree vanes opposing the torque in the outlet rim (not in the fan duct). It worked fine on the one I made.

Posted by David Ramsden on 02/02/2021 11:00:35: Hi Roger Ron and John, Thanks for your posts chaps. The Junior 60 is a bit smaller than I want and has too many straight lines for my liking, The Sig Rascal has a lovely the wing shape! But it's massive. The Astro Hog is just the right size (72" but I'm looking for a high wing. I started sketching a hybrid fuselage last night: Curvy like the Deacon, but with a slightly longer nose and with the tail and wing section of a PD Parasol. I will look into the Sig Rascal wing plan. Scaled down to 70" span that could really suit my curvy fuselage idea. Thanks everyone. Happy to assist. But my point was not really meant as just a Junior 60 recommendation, that was just an example showing that you need not worry about fitting ailerons to what were originally free flight models models with very steep dihedral. Many were like that and the steep dihedral of them looks very 'vintage' in the air. Whereas, with respect to Peter, the Jackdaw looks near identical to any modern balsa/ply trainer so I personally don't see the point in it. Each to their own of course. As for the Rascal It's just a caricature and looks nothing like the model it is supposedly based on. It's nice but it's too 'prettied up' so in the air it looks very much like a real Cessna 177 Cardinal (from the 1970's)  fitted with an an eliptical wing. And for size, if you are building it yourself you can make it any size you want. I built mine from the kit, which is 50 inch span,  too small for me really but I couldn't resist. In the air it's nowhere near as cute as the equally pretty 1950's  Vic Smeed 'Debutante' - another suggestion. You might try the Southerner, originally a 60 inch KK kit. I've built the 84 inch one for which a plan is available. It's very curvaceous and instantly recognisable and delightfully 'vintage'. A small point - the top of the fuselage near the wing could do with a little improvement, a couple of short extra stringers to improve the 'flow' between wing seat and curved top. (Though such 'disjoints' were common on vintage models so you might want to leave it.) And personally I think designing your own 'vintage' model is a bit phoney Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 14:21:16 Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 14:24:34

Posted by David Ramsden on 01/02/2021 18:57:36: I thought I’d take a break from designing and build a classic along the lines of the Junior 60. I wanted something light and slow but 4-channel rather than 3. I found a plan for the 4 channel Super 60 but it’s boxy fuselage shape and angular fin just didn’t ‘do it’ for me. Then I found the 4 channel PD Parasol and got quite excited about it! But, although it’s tail looked beautiful, its fuselage shape (convex top and bottom) was not my (pre-conceived) idea of a vintage classic. Then I found the lovely curvy fuselage outlines of the Deacon and the Viking and the lovely wing shapes of the Dot I, and Black Magic. I found quite a few 3 channel designs that I really liked the look of but I had my heart set on having aileron control for some slow, low-energy, aerobatics with half-decent rolls. An aerobatic vintage design called the Over & Under caught my attention but I couldn’t see any way that its fully symmetrical section would give a low sink rate when compared to the flat bottomed Super 60 or the semi-symmetrical PD Parasol. I almost decided to just build a PD Parasol exactly as per plan but I definitely didn’t want a one-piece model and I couldn’t visualise an attractive and lightweight way of adapting the parasol and struts to a banded-on wing. I also want something slightly bigger than 60”. So, it looks like I’m about to embark on a new vintage-hybrid design project along these lines: Semi-symmetrical wing section of the PD Parasol with strip ailerons as per the Super 60 Curvey fuselage of the Deacon/Cardinal but a little extra nose length and diagonal bracing Tail feathers copied directly from the PD Parasol which to me look perfect Wing shape similar to Black Magic Approx. 10” chord, 70” wingspan, 40” fuselage. Electric power (I found the 4-max website. What a great resource!) You’ll have realised by now that I’m a bit of a fussy bugger with quite fixed ideas about what, to me, looks ‘right’. So before I get my pencil out, if anyone on the forum would like to suggest an existing design that fits the bill I’d be most interested! Thanks for reading, David The Junior 60 is fine on 4/5 channels even with the large 'standard dihedral'. I put top hinged inset (not strip) ailerons on mine and left the steep dihedral as it was for 'atmosphere'. With about 50% differential, (which is the only amount of differential I've tried) it works so well that I hardly ever use the rudder except for keeping straight on takeoff. So "Ailerons don't work with steep dihedral" is a complete myth. One bloke who has never tried it  writes this sort of guff in a magazine and other blokes  who haven't tried it either repeat it until it becomes 'fact'. Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 07:33:14 Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 07:38:02 Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 07:43:28

Posted by Erfolg on 16/01/2021 13:38:54: Yesterday, the better half and myself walked down to the beach, probably 200 yards. Then walked about a mile along it. The air had a cold chill, the Gulls were not even to be seen in any numbers, just a solitary Cormorant, Shag, or similar could be seen in the distance. Both of us with our full Arctic Gear being worn. Still I shivered. It was notable that the parked cars of day trippers that have recently been filling the coast road were absent. Even the dog walkers were few and far between. Local walkers and joggers were also mostly absent. So it was a surprise when we happened upon two fellow golfers at my wives club. A discussion between these women generally centred on how long, when will we, playing golf again. Just to emphasis we all were about 3 metres apart, the whole time. As we continued our walk, into the biting breeze, noting that the fresh water percolating from the sand dunes formed puddles of iced water, I ruminated internally with respect to the distress that these woman felt. I then thought four years ago, I flew models daily, either at was then my club field or the 9 hole golf course at the back of our house. Having moved there was no chance of flying on any of the now local golf courses. Even those closed due to ground conditions. I flew mostly 2-3 times a week pre lock. Lock down reduced flying to once in 9 months. I then thought, I no longer miss flying as I had done, I am not desperate to fly any models as I was was. The few models I have completed and built during lock down, await being flown. But I think if I see them take to the air once will be enough etc. Now i do ponder, is an age thing, as I am now officially as well as sometimes feeling old. Catching a glimpse of myself in my bathroom mirror, comes as a shock, who is that old man? I am not consciously aware that I am no longer in my thirties. Or perhaps it is all the build and other things that I do during lock down , are seen as more interesting Even the BMFA area meetings are now Zoom. I no longer have to go out. All of this had me thinking, even a small number behaving as I now do, could be further bad news for our hobby, the trade and potentially the BMFA membership. Although just like NT i would be reluctant to drop out of the movements, as in principle they are worth supporting. Then I pondered, both the BMFA and NT rely on a small number of members who voluntarily make things happen, at club, and the competitions. So, are others still enthused , barely able to contain themselves, as they await release from lock down. Or have other interests taken over?   It's mostly age. As you get older it becomes more and more 'bother' to do 'optional' things like model flying, fishing, etc. particularly if it involves driving about, 'setting up' and putting it all back in the car and then the house afterwards. If electric rather than glow all the faffing around beforehand becomes too much hassle too. By the time I've charged several batteries I tend to lose interest in going at all. I've always been a 'builder', (and still quite a fast one if I want to be). Many are my own (scale) designs as I enjoy the (old fashioned but much quicker than any computerised method) process of technical drawing/draftsmanship. And I'm good at it. As good as any well-known professional model designer and a lot better than some. But nowadays most of my flying is 'proof' of the model. I'm longer 'frightened' of flying  toy planes, can fly any sort, and they all fly much the same anyway, from Auster to turbine F-16.  Also when you look at the  'fun had per pound spent'  although I don't actually care about the cost I've given up on the more fancy models. A 60 inch or so WW2 single engine fighter of accurate shape and with retracts,   but lacking 'dolls house' stuff  such as rivets and lots of  instruments is more than adequate.  Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 06:44:03 Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/02/2021 06:47:11

That's terrific! Good idea about the intakes.

Some years ago someone gave me some 1940-1947 Aeromodeller magazines. They were making model planes out of UK hard and softwoods and the plans reflected this. The balsa shortage could go on for a long time. The UK model market may be too small for the balsa shippers to bother with. Let's hope not. Personally I have several kits as I'm in the habit of buying ones I like before they go out of production but  maybe don't build them for several years. Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 31/01/2021 17:21:44

Posted by i12fly on 31/01/2021 14:15:03: Roger and Peter, as I said 'lesson learnt' it was some years ago and has not been repeated and my situational awareness is fine thank you. I applaud you guys never having made a mistake sometime. Sure we do. Hopefully not twice. Fly into the sun straight and level and you should come out the same. I won't elaborate as you know how to suck eggs as well as I do. Except for photochromic sunglasses. Wear them too much and your eyes can become 'lazy' and after a while the irises won't close down as much as they should.

An old thread. Some of my lipos, stored at roughly half charge, are as old as the thread and still fine. Myths? We had them when NiCads came out too. Not so much with NiMH.

Posted by Bonzo Moon on 31/01/2021 12:05:02: Some interesting 'ideas' here that I feel I should respond to.   Model planes can be small and model planes can be large. There is no such things as 'wind' to a plane in the air but there are gusts. As a qualified ocean yachtmaster with 70,000 miles and a paraglider pilot, paramotor pilot who has studied meteorology I can assure there is such a thing as 'wind' and it will affect an aircraft, whether a jumbo jet or a 300 gms model. Try taking off 'down wind'? I agree the plane doesn't know or feel how strong the wind is, or feel it unless it's turbulent, but it affects its progress over the terrain. Ground speed. Even an airliner in the jetstream will make a faster Atlantic crossing on a good day with a good tail wind. Every time this model climbed higher the 'wind speed' was increasing because of 'wind gradient' and it was being carried away faster and faster from me downwind. The WIND, whether laminar or gusting,(ie occasionally blowing at higher speed than the average wind strength) , was carrying it away. Sorry, but a few definitions 1 wind, the perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction. 2. wind speed, the rate at which air is moving in a particular area 3 wind gradient, the rate of increase of wind strength with unit increase in height above ground level. 4. Ground speed. Ground speed is the horizontal speed of an aircraft relative to the Earth’s surface.   and finally ... This made me chuckle a bit Low, slow, turning, a far too high angle of bank for those conditions so it sideslips into the ground. I bet he used the ailerons to turn, not the rudder as he should have. That would have greatly reduced the angle of bank while still causing the turn, I'm definitely not the best RC pilot on the planet (not that you know what my flying skills are like?) but ... you're dead right Roger, I didn't use rudder, it didn't have one, this model has elevons . . . . The never ending thread! Stay safe out there and have a good day.         This stuff is always coming up in model flying circles. Not so much in general aviation. Of course wind exists, we all know that... . A surface vehicle, be it land or marine has a reference to the surface as it is attached to it via wheels, tracks, hull, keel, whatever. Even those new freak America's cup boats, via the foils. Bur an aircraft isn't. it is totally 'unaware' of the ground. Leaving aside gusts and windshear It is flying in a 'block' of still air. That the 'block' is moving with reference to the ground is of no matter. People don't seem to realise this, hence the modeller dreaded 'downwind turn' nonsense. 'Dreaded' because the modeller is trying to produce a constant  speed and/or symmetrical shapes with reference to the ground so ends up with a too slow airspeed. Then we have 'downwind or 'upwind'.  Thst needs a reference. Upwind of the church, downwind of the tall tree  or the pilot, to the windward of the shore. An aircraft is unaware of all those things. Takeoff  downwind? It just takes a longer runway is all,  the aircraft being unaware of groundspeed at all times. Do it a lot  you may wear the wheelbearings our but that's all. There are no aerodynamic effects (such as control blowback)once you have reached  the windspeed so are 'stationary' re the aircraft's only reference, Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 31/01/2021 16:37:46 Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 31/01/2021 16:38:56

Posted by Denis Watkins on 31/01/2021 09:39:54: I am just happy with Bonzos' honesty with his truth, laying bare strengths and things to avoid. It was a small " foamie " in wind with problems. Support has been given, and we learn more from the issues. Yeah. I mostly build glow balsa/ply planes with 40 and up engines. If nothing else this thread is tempting me to build a small foamy, maybe a delta as they tend to be crash resistant, to fly in m back garden.

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 31/01/2021 08:57:32: Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 31/01/2021 07:37:17: Posted by Bonzo Moon on 30/01/2021 14:57:36: Yes, no doubt true. Every time it dived I tried to fly it back with just a little throttle, and I think I had the orientation OK, but it just did it's own thing! It did appear that the throttle was doing it's own thing too, hence the crazy climbing. Anxiety does come into it too though, and eventually I knew I'd reached a point (and said it) where it was gone! Lessons learned. I was quite pleased with that even model even if it was just a cheap build foamie. I'd put a lot of thought into the build too. Only a couple of days. I guess at least it wasn't something I'd spent weeks building in the traditional way in balsa with lovely covering etc. That would have been really gutting. I've seen videos from a guy on YouTube who builds beautiful jet airliners, and one of his crashed and burned in it's maiden. Model planes can be small and model planes can be large. There is no such things as 'wind' to a plane in the air bur there are gusts. Regardless of the size of the plane a higher wing loading will give you more inertia per unit area and the plane won't be disturbed by gusts so much. It's why some slope soarers (in particular) have bays to put weights in. The airliner. If that was the video I saw fairly recently it was obvious it would happen. Too much time spent building highly detailed airborne 'dolls houses' and not enough air time. Oh dear! Just when I thought we had rediscovered how to be nice to each other again Edited By Piers Bowlan on 31/01/2021 08:58:24 What's 'not nice' about it? Human opinions don't alter truth. Low, slow, turning, a far too high angle of bank for those conditions so it sideslips into the ground. I bet he used the ailerons to turn, not the rudder as he should have. That would have greatly reduced the angle of bank while still causing the turn, There's a youtube video of a real B-52 doing exactly the same thing at an air display.. That he was going to stuff the B-52 in was obvious. AND MY POST may help  prevent other modellers doing the same thing. Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 31/01/2021 09:31:43 Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 31/01/2021 09:33:37 Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 31/01/2021 09:34:15