Kevin Fairgrieve Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Give that man the Cigar. Yep. I have no idea how that happened, but none the less it did. So onwards and upwards. Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Gilder Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Can you not insert a cover sheet into the wrong hole and recut a new servo hole in the correct location. You are not the first to make this mistake () and you wont be the last!!! Doesnt look too difficult to rectify! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Fairgrieve Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 That would be an easy fix, but. And there is always a but. The wing is built fro a laser cut kit and has the servo bays pre cut. all you have to do is put them between the correct ribs. I think I am just going to go with it. If I need to I can dial out any errors on the TX (I hope). Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Jones 2 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 If this link works, here is something I found by chance re farmhand poor fitting of undercarriage:**LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Fairgrieve Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 So spur`d on by Gary`s build, I took some motivation shots. And set about doing the deed. Today I covered the bottom of the wing and fuselage. Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Kev, Is that the HK chequered covering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Fairgrieve Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Yes it is. I made a bit of a mess of the centre section though. Goes on a treat and conforms well round compound curves. Kev Edited By Kevin Fairgrieve on 10/04/2014 21:14:48 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Looks ok from here Kev Very tough stuff H.K film, I like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Posted by Kevin Fairgrieve on 10/04/2014 20:46:47: Yes it is. I made a bit of a mess of the centre section though. Goes on a treat and conforms well round compound curves. Kev Edited By Kevin Fairgrieve on 10/04/2014 21:14:48 Thought so. Looks good. Interested to see what you do with the rest of the plane. I used the slightly smaller black and white covering on the under-wing of a WOT4 classic recently - works great with yellow / red upper-wing. Trust me - you won't have difficuly telling which way up it is if you use a plain colour(s) for the top. I bought some large red / white (same as yours I think), while it was in stock at HK(!), planning on maybe using it on the under-wing of the farmhard like you've done. I think though, that I'm going to stick to the Dusty scheme as close as I can. This might spoil the effect. Dis-orientation shouldn't be an issue with the farmhand due to the size and wing dihedral. The chequerboard will definitely not go to waste as I have plenty more projects planned - I'll use it on something more aerobatic. Edited By Gary Manuel on 11/04/2014 09:50:56 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Fairgrieve Posted April 11, 2014 Author Share Posted April 11, 2014 A clue as to the scheme. Mainly red with a little white decoration on top. The flash makes it look orange, but it is the same red as the chequer pattern. I have also used the big chequer film on my Mini Jazz. Good film, although I have noticed some white adhesive creep out from the edge of the red film. This did not happen on the chequer film. Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Iron a bit too hot ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I noticed a bit of white around the red on my WOT4 too. Meths removed it Edited By Gary Manuel on 11/04/2014 21:50:06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Fairgrieve Posted April 14, 2014 Author Share Posted April 14, 2014 A little more done today. Wings. Fuselage started. Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Looking good Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Fairgrieve Posted April 16, 2014 Author Share Posted April 16, 2014 Finished the fuselage today. Cowl next!!! Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DALE BOSTON Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Kevin, I wondered if you have given any thought to the position of the CG yet? The instructions suggest two options: First, in item 63, it says "The model should balance at the main spar, or a maximum of 15 mm forward of it" Second, in the table of recommended throws etc, it says "Centre of Gravity on the main wing spar (100 to 115 mm from the leading edge)" Which option do you plan to go with?! Dale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DALE BOSTON Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Kevin, To make my previous post a little clearer, I should have mentioned that the main spar is 100 mm from the leading edge of the wing. Thus the options range from 85 mm to 100 mm and from 100 mm to 115 mm from the leading edge of the wing. A little confusing! I will be very interested in what you decide. Dale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Fairgrieve Posted April 18, 2014 Author Share Posted April 18, 2014 Dale. Once I get everything installed I will have a better idea regarding the CofG. I tend to play it safe to start with and have the CofG a little nose heavy. I can always remove weight if I need to. I will post the results after the initial flight tests. Kev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DALE BOSTON Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Hi Kevin, Having the C of G positioned so that the plane is a little nose heavy for the first flight sounds like a smart way to go. However, what i was hoping to get your thoughts on was whether you were planning to go on the nose heavy side of the 100 mm to 115 mm range, or the nose heavy side of the 85 mm to 100 mm range. Maybe a little early to worry about that but when you get to that stage would appreciate your thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 I've been reading the comments about C of G with interest as my build will also be reaching this stage soon. I'm wondering whether the "rogue" 15mm is the thickness of the leading edge strip. Maybe one measurement is from the leading edge and the other is from the front of the wing ribs. just a thought, but I will certainly be checking this out later. Not as easy as it sounds once the wing covering is in place. Maybe the laser cutouts left in one of the wing rib sheets will reveal all? Edited By Gary Manuel on 20/04/2014 08:10:47 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Kevin, Hope you don't think I'm railroading your forum with this post. As the C of G will affect both builds and the issue was raised by Dale in your build log, I thought it best to post this here. Dale. You are absolutely right that there is a conflict between paragraph 63 of the manual and the table on the following page. It's exactly as you have said. To clarify this and come up with a "sensible" C of G, I made a template from the laser cut wing rib sheet and marked it up as below. The two recommended C of G positions in the manual are shaded at the bottom. It can be seen that they overlap, so anywhere within this overlapping area should be "safe". By my calculations, anywhere between 100 and 107mm from the leading edge should be safe, with 100mm being my recommendation, and what I'll be aiming for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymaz Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 100mm from leading edge with a little nose down attitude will be ok from the looks of the drawing, in the middle of the safe zone ,so worry not , Dusty. Edited By cymaz on 20/04/2014 10:14:46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 It's Strut Jetstream to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DALE BOSTON Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Gary, That is certainly an interesting analysis but it overlooks the possibility (or probability in my view) that someone simply made a mistake in the instructions. I suspect one range is what the designer intended and the other range is the result of a typo. The question is which is which. It would be good to get some input from the designer, or from Traplet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 I agree - there's definitely a mistake in the instructions. My analysis assumes that there's only one mistake and identifies a safe area - from the wing spar to 7mm forwards of it. The common factor is that the C of G should be on the main spar, so moving forwards (by 7mm) will just make it a bit more stable for test flying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.632415da66ae2d3b91c91514c153e5df.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.