Galaxy Models Musketeer Build

[Tony H]

38 minutes ago, Nigel R said:

 

PVA plus very thin glass is my choice for wing joining. 

 

I use multiple layers of the lightest weight glass around. 3 for a 40 size model. A narrow, medium and wide strip. This spreads the load around quite well. As a bonus, the wide strip provides an amount of "handling" reinforcement. I'd aim for a 2" narrow strip, a 6" medium, and a 10" wide strip, on something the size of musketeer. Squeegee the PVA in using a credit card. When all the layers are stuck on, you can fill the weave with another couple of layers of PVA.

 

Needs to be put somewhere warm, so the PVA can dry quick-ish. If it remains cold and damp you risk losing the wing sheeting to damp induced warps.

 

As a bonus, film sticks to PVA pretty good, too.

 

PS you cannot beat that twin sound can you?

I was thinking of using the GF 4-5in bandage that comes in the kit with fast drying PVA glue.

 

You are right about the twin engine sound. Only issue is I am always bricking it in case one engine dead sticks, so far so good (hence why its a good leccy candidate)

Edited April 29, 2021 by Tony H

[Nigel R]

I imagine that will work perfectly well too.

 

Prior to using thin glass, I used to use a medical bandage and PVA.

 

Needs lightweight filler afterwards though - I imagine thick glass would be the same.

 

I was worried about engine outs too. But. Having had several single engine outs on my twin... Keep the throttle high, keep it moving, then it needs only a little rudder to stay straight. Get in the landing pattern asap, obviously you need to stick the first landing. But as an alternative, cut and glide is a worse plan, it just gives you less time to do anything and you have to make the first landing anyway...

[Redex]

Nice looking model and a great video. Thanks for the advice too.

[Andy48]

3 hours ago, Nigel R said:

 

PVA plus very thin glass is my choice for wing joining. 

 

I use multiple layers of the lightest weight glass around. 3 for a 40 size model. A narrow, medium and wide strip. This spreads the load around quite well. As a bonus, the wide strip provides an amount of "handling" reinforcement. I'd aim for a 2" narrow strip, a 6" medium, and a 10" wide strip, on something the size of musketeer. Squeegee the PVA in using a credit card. When all the layers are stuck on, you can fill the weave with another couple of layers of PVA.

 

Needs to be put somewhere warm, so the PVA can dry quick-ish. If it remains cold and damp you risk losing the wing sheeting to damp induced warps.

 

As a bonus, film sticks to PVA pretty good, too.

 

PS you cannot beat that twin sound can you?

I used the Brown Gorilla foaming glue. The wing halves need to be well clamped to stop the foaming pushing them apart. After that no wing bandage, and over the years its proved to be more than strong enough, and the wing will break before the join. I also used the same glue for the wood landing gear supports in the wings.

[kc]

Whilst an electric Twin Hornet sounds a good idea it seems to me one needs to consider several things

 

1. the weight of the ordinary Hornet built by a forum member was 4.8 pounds and also has only 51 inch span.   Two electric motors are likely heavier than one and they are much further back therefore CG might require plenty of lead.   Wing loading might be high.

2. you would need to get the motor wires through the foam wing without weakening it.   Quite possible but not too easy.

3. you would need to make sure there is sufficient clearance for the props to miss the fuselage at the size you need for electric.   Not a problem but needs thinking about.

 

Building an ordinary electric Hornet would seem a lot easier, but if you enjoy a challenge then go for the twin.

Edited April 29, 2021 by kc

[Tony H]

 

43 minutes ago, kc said:

Whilst an electric Twin Hornet sounds a good idea it seems to me one needs to consider several things

 

1. the weight of the ordinary Hornet built by a forum member was 4.8 pounds and also has only 51 inch span.   Two electric motors are likely heavier than one and they are much further back therefore CG might require plenty of lead.   Wing loading might be high.

2. you would need to get the motor wires through the foam wing without weakening it.   Quite possible but not too easy.

3. you would need to make sure there is sufficient clearance for the props to miss the fuselage at the size you need for electric.   Not a problem but needs thinking about.

 

Building an ordinary electric Hornet would seem a lot easier, but if you enjoy a challenge then go for the twin.

 

A single engine plane will always be easier but I disagree regarding the weight as two 25 IC engine will more than likely weigh more than the motors. I will say this though, dont expect it to be as light and able to dead stick glide like the PB Bean or Galaxy Magician.

 

The cables will be more challenging like you say and you could easily use the front of the fuselage to house the battery compartment for say a 4s 5000. 

 

Also because it is leccy I would use smaller lighter servos to save weight, I would use 9g-20g servos.

 

You would probably want to raise the plane a bit with bigger wheels to give yourself more prop space so it doesn't become a lawn mower. You will struggle to go bigger than 9in prop.

 

The biggest issue with mine is getting oil under the covering.

 

I would buy one before they put the price up because in my opinion the Twin Hornet is worth a bit more than the Musketeer because of what you get in the kit.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Tony H

[Nigel R]

Tony, does the (twin) Hornet have the same wing as the Magician?

 

[Tony H]

I don't think so. I think the magician has a slightly thinner more tapered wing.

1 hour ago, Nigel R said:

Tony, does the (twin) Hornet have the same wing as the Magician?

 

 

[kc]

A 1988 RCME advert for Galaxy shows the Magician as 50 inch span and the Twin Hornet and Hornet as 51 inch span.

Interesting to note that Galaxy Models Ipswich advertised the Hornets etc but only  Galaxy Norwich advertised the Musketeer.   Somewhat separate but related companies with mostly the same kits it seems.   Separate adverts and different prices for postage then ( 2.25 compared to 2.45 ) so it was 20 pence cheaper to buy the Magician from Ipswich!

[Tony H]

1 hour ago, kc said:

A 1988 RCME advert for Galaxy shows the Magician as 50 inch span and the Twin Hornet and Hornet as 51 inch span.

Interesting to note that Galaxy Models Ipswich advertised the Hornets etc but only  Galaxy Norwich advertised the Musketeer.   Somewhat separate but related companies with mostly the same kits it seems.   Separate adverts and different prices for postage then ( 2.25 compared to 2.45 ) so it was 20 pence cheaper to buy the Magician from Ipswich!

Did Galaxy Norwich become Pegasus Models? That would explain them stocking Galaxy Models kits even when Galaxy Models was still going. I bought my first plane from Galaxy Models in 1998 it was the SuperSixty shame the no longer exist now.

[Tony H]

Quick update, I am about 25hrs is now. I've made a few mistakes along the way probably due to me not building anything for nearly 4 years. Most of the plane is built just needs lots of sanding. 

 

Drying time in my workshop hasn't helped either everything seems to be taking ages to dry.

 

I am trying to figure out my colour scheme now.

[Tony H]

Hi,

 

I am slowly getting there with the wood nose causing me lots of time delays. I wish they would put a GF cowl in with the kit not an ABS one. Just a quick mock up photo before I finish fully sanding everything.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Tony H

[Jonathan M]

Might not yet be finished but certainly already has its cheeky, plucky appearance!

 

Re the cowling, I was thinking of just beefing my one up with GF and epoxy...?

[Tony H]

Thanks Johnathan, it definately does have a cheeky appearance. The wooden cowl is a bit of a pain for general access and clearance a reinforced ABS or GF Cowl would be better. The only part I can't access is the steerable nose. I thought about cutting the cowl off and figuring out some way to make it removable.

 

Just thinking about colour scheme now, I will keep it simple just Navy Blue and White maybe with a gold of silver stripe.

 

It's a robust plane. I just need to mount the servos, fine sand it and make the fuel tank bay belly removable 

[Piers Bowlan]

Excellent work Tony, what colour scheme are you planning?  

Jonathan, I think beefing up the ABS cowl with epoxy and glass ( or carbon?) cloth would be a good alternative.

[Tony H]

Thanks Piers. I was thinking Navy Blue and White with a silver stripe a bit like this sketch, grey bits Navy.

[Piers Bowlan]

Very smart, looks very clean. I expect you have a suitably sized pilot itching to get into the cockpit!

[Redex]

Tony, do you use a different colour scheme for under the wings - this is mine under wing.

 

 

[Tony H]

53 minutes ago, Piers Bowlan said:

Very smart, looks very clean. I expect you have a suitably sized pilot itching to get into the cockpit!

Thanks. I am looking for a pilot knocking around my workshop.

[Tony H]

43 minutes ago, Redex said:

Tony, do you use a different colour scheme for under the wings - this is mine under wing.

 

 

Good to see other peoples, I assume it flies well? What CofG did you go with there are two positions in the instructions, beginner to experienced? I was just going to keep the underneath white, I would have gone check if I could have bought the covering. I find it is best to keep it simple with IC, oil gets under too many covering edges.

[Redex]

I'm really still experimenting with the CofG as I have not had to many flights yet. However I have the CofG set to mid way according to the text at 73 mm from Leading Edge.

The pilot I used was -  5508434 - JP Pilot Yellow and Red (P26)

[kc]

If you want to cut off the cowl and find a way to refix it on you might consider the method used by Peter Miller on several recent plans -  a ply plate with 'keyhole' slots is matched to the bukhead then glued to the cowl.   A catch prevents it coming loose.   See the Rans 9 Chaos free plan recently etc.

[Tony H]

15 hours ago, kc said:

If you want to cut off the cowl and find a way to refix it on you might consider the method used by Peter Miller on several recent plans -  a ply plate with 'keyhole' slots is matched to the bukhead then glued to the cowl.   A catch prevents it coming loose.   See the Rans 9 Chaos free plan recently etc.

Thanks KC, do you have any images of the cowl attachment I dont have the magazine. I saw on RCModelGeeks on youtube they made a detachable wooden Cowl for a PB Tornado which used large motor connectors to push attach the Cowl, it looked a good idea but it was electric and I am not sure it would hold up to IC.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Tony H

[kc]

There are good photos of Peter Miller's cowl fixing  on his Rans 9 Chaos section.  It seems he mostly used this on electric models though I cannot see any reason why it wouldn't work on i.c. too.

Note that the keyholes need to be a particular way up so that the catch to stop it coming off is at the bottom.   Put the keyholes the other way up and the catch needs to be on top.

The backplate with keyholes is specified as 1/16th ply in this plan and I suppose it makes up for the sawcut thickness if you cut off the cowl.  

The keyhole technique has been used for decades by cabinet makers to edge join wood for items like tabletops, but they use countersunk screws so that they cut their way in and bite.   For cowls round head screws would be used unless you want them to bite and hold tighter.   The principle is in either case that the screws are put in and if the fit is loose the item is removed and screws are slightly tightened until the desired fit is achieved.   Many domestic items have this keyhole fixing - the common 4way 13 amp sockets on extension leads are an example. 

[Caveman]

Hi Tony, here are a few photos of the cowl of my Vultee Vanguard. The cowl is split in two horizontally to allow for speedy access to the engine without removal of the prop and spinner.

The top and bottom are joined by two 'straps' on each side, the lower screws are removable to allow the parts to slide apart. It takes about 20 seconds to have the engine exposed - this saves having an external wire adjust the mixture.

 

 

 

 

 

Hope that helps, GDB