reg shaw Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Ordered the plan on Wednesday, received the plan on Friday, now that's good service!! First thoughts are the plan is not the greatest print quality, faded in places but you can get enough info off it. My plan all along was to redraw the plan to suit my Laser 75 petrol, going from 55" span (that's what the plan says but for some reason I always thought it was less) to probably about 75" or so, but time will tell when I get to the redrawing bit. I'm hoping to stick to the standard design but don't fancy the banded on wings so will do a neater bolt on affair. It should be a fun model to operate with its slats and flaps, the idea is to make it light and floaty and capable of going very slowly. The plan also shows single servo's for the ailerons and flaps but I'm using 4 to give the option of drooping ailerons and or flapperons or any combination in between! Let the redraw begin....... Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Stratton Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Hi Ian, will be following your endeavours cos I think this will be something interesting! I think I read somewhere that its original wingspan was 48". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Privett Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Now that's a "blast from the past" Ian! Peter Russell's column in which he often talked about his STOL designs (and evolution of, through the various marks) are probably the first thing I recall when I think back to the mags of the early-70s (RCM&E I think, though it might have been Radio Modeller?) I'll watch this thread with interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The STOL has a very chubby fuselage, have you ever considered slimming it down a little by raising the lower edge to a straight line to tail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reg shaw Posted November 28, 2014 Author Share Posted November 28, 2014 KC, that's part of Stol's charm, its odd looks! I love how the cowl doesn't 'flow' in plan view, and also what appears to be a very short nose. I've wanted one of these machines since I was a lad and have never got round to it as there is always a reason to do something else. Now there is a reason to do the Stol and for that I thank ye!! Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 I shall be following with great interest Ian. I'm keen to build a STOL myself but more on the lines of a Zenith 750 but not to exact scale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levanter Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Stol is on my list too and I would like to go a bit larger. Very cheeky question Ian but would you sell me a copy of your re-drawn plan. I don't mean just for the copy but a price to reflect your time (which I don't have) and your effort (which I could not hope to match) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Don't want to be a party-pooper, folks - I like the idea of an enlarged STOL, too - but you you might want to consider if there are any copyright issues, if any, with that proposal, the plans being for sale with MHS and all that... Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 There is nothing wrong with enlarging the plan for your own non commercial use. The Plans Handbook shows it as 48 inch span, so I wonder whether the plan as sold now is actually 48 or 55 inch span? It may not matter to Ian but it might affect others who are building it and expect it to fly on .19 engine etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levanter Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Pete. I don't want to breach any copyright but if Ian is redrawing, I had imagined there would be significant design changes (knowing him through this forum) that would probably avoid a problem. Nor would I want to put Ian in any kind of difficulty. It was based on a genuine desire to work from something that is currently not available but I would be more than happy to make a formal request to the copyright holders and it does appear that I have at least one supporter from the mass build and hopefully you too if everything is above board. Anyway Ian hasn't replied yet so it may all be academic. I have seen evidence on this forum that if it is influenced by Ian, aerodynamically tested by BEB, covered by Danny and moderated by Pete B the model could have considerable value! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ashby - Moderator Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 30/11/2014 13:47:39: Don't want to be a party-pooper, folks - I like the idea of an enlarged STOL, too - but you you might want to consider if there are any copyright issues, if any, with that proposal, the plans being for sale with MHS and all that... Pete No issues at all, enlarge or shrink to your heart's content Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 No, I don't think any model designer would have any objection to one enlarging a plan for one's own use - it was more the mention of making a bob or two etc, rather than the complexities of copyright, which prompted my comment The plan as sold by MHS describes it as 48" span, kc. I have to say any involvement of mine is much more likely to be the kiss of death on a project, rather than any added value, I can assure you!..... Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Lets hope the enlarged 75 inch model is a success and that RCME may publish it as a plan. Pete, I know the website and plans handbook say it's 48 inch span so that's why I think we should find out if the plan as sold now is printed to 48 inch. Is it just a caption on the plan that says 55 inch or has the plan been enlarged in error? This will be important to any beginners who may intend to build this as part of the Mass Build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Perhaps Ian can enlighten us with the actual measurement on his plan? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff2wings Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reg shaw Posted December 1, 2014 Author Share Posted December 1, 2014 Blimey, not looked in here for a couple of days, been away testing toy aeroplanes in the nice weather!! I haven't started redrawing the plan yet, but if anyone wants a copy then I'll have to draw it in a more organised way than what I had planned!! Obviously the copy could be freely available if thats OK with the plans folks. I haven't measured the span on the plan yet, but it definately says 55" in the title box on the plan. The text has clearly been altered though. I'll measure it and get back tonight. Regarding any modifications, I'm trying to stick faithfully to the original but the fuselage might be a bit flexible without any diagonals, but again that is part of the design and its charm. I built a similar designed fuselage a few years ago which was stiffened up by running another 4 longeron down the inside corners of the fuselage and that worked sufficiently without spoiling the look of the original structure. Another change I think will be to the mainspars. Keep the spar sizes in ratio but shear web front and back in balsa as opposed to the single spruce infill between top and bottom spars (to form an I beam) I'll get the plan out and lay the Laser on to work out the sizes. Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Davis Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Posted by reg shaw on 01/12/2014 09:40:05: I haven't measured the span on the plan yet, but it definately says 55" in the title box on the plan. Ian. I have just measured my plan and it's definitely 55 inches. The plans handbook and website have it wrong. Edited By David Davis on 01/12/2014 16:13:15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 As you will see on the plan shown by Jeff it is described in print as 48 inch and the old handbooks show 48 inch too. There were many, many items about the STOL in Peter Russel's column -Straight& Level- but I don't recall anything about the wing span being changed or being incorrect. I do recall there being an item about the error in the flap or aileron bellcrank 'handing' and several modified wings ( mark 2 etc) but nothing about span. I wonder whether it has been redrawn and become larger in the process. Has the bellcrank 'handing' been corrected? So it's all down to owners of the original plan or models to tell us what the span really was. And confirm the width of formers etc. If it has now been reprinted at a 15 percent larger size it is unlikely to fly well with old engines of the original size (.19 to .25 I think) although modern engines might be more powerful now. And if it's just the plan being enlarged without the material sizes being increased then a bigger risk of wing failure. As I recall the articles said the wing was built very lightly with minimal material, so there would now be little safety margin left if the plan has been enlarged by 15 percent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Davis Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 There are two different plans; the original STOL, plan code RC/1190; and the STOL Mk 2, plan code RC 1445. On the website both models are listed as having a 1219mm (48" wingspan.) As far as the Mk 2 is concerned this is incorrect for I have measured the plan and established that the wingspan is 55". I have also measured the chord of the wing at 8.75 inches and the fuselage width at its widest point at 4 inches. I do not know how this compares with RC/1190 because I do not have a copy of the plan. I believe that the original STOL had flaps but no ailerons. It could be that Peter Russell added a few bays to the structure of the original wing when he produced the Mk 2 wing with ailerons, that would account for the difference in the wingspans. There was a third wing, the "Trainer Wing" which had no ailerons flaps or slots. I'm pretty sure that no plan for this wing was ever produced but I remember reading about it in the magazine during the Eighties or Nineties and seeing a reduced-sized wing rib printed in the article. Incidentally, the cost of the original STOL plan, R/C1190, is still listed at £17.50 on the website. The Mk 2 plan is discounted at £7.50. I hope this helps. Edited By David Davis on 01/12/2014 17:41:53 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 There is nothing in the article of the Mk2 which says anything about changing the span from the original ( RC1190) so one must assume it's the same. PR discussed all the other changes in detail. David, does your plan have the same layout as the plan shown by Jeff and in the reprint of the article? This clearly shows 48 inch in the extreme top left, while Ian said it is described as 55 inch on his plan. Does it have the same artists style or is it the plain CAD drawings we get now? ( you can see the original plan and the reprint of the article in the Features- Plan built - section on the heading of Modelflying. ) Could it have been redrawn for the CNC cut parts I wonder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Davis Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 They are different plans. Mine does not have the Aerial(?) logo at the top left-hand corner and it clearly states that the wingspan is 55 inches not 48 inches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reg shaw Posted December 1, 2014 Author Share Posted December 1, 2014 The span on the plan is 55 in and that's what it says it is on said plan. There are inaccuracies though, the wing chord on my wing plan is 7mm narrower than the rib profile on the fuselage side view. I'm going for the wider measurement. The size increase I'm going for is 1.5 times, giving a span of 82.5", the firewall and cowl length nicely suits the Laser. I'll be starting to draw it up tomorrow. I need to find some nice vintage looking 4.5" wheels, any suggestions? I'm probably going for one piece wings and a removable tailplane, though two piece is an option for maximum packery in my trailer! I'm not banding any of the bits on either. Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Davis Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 To solve the wingspan issue, someone with RC/1190 simply has to measure his wing on the plan. That way we'll find out whether the earlier model has a smaller wing or whether it's simply a printing error on the plan and in the publicity. If it's that important to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.