By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for Andy Blackburn

Here is a list of all the postings Andy Blackburn has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: Harvard! Tony's 2012 design for the Special Issue
29/05/2012 18:43:26

Tricky one; it seems to have a fair bit of fuselage under the wing, which (for me) rules out the AT-6. I suspect the large opening is in fact a hatch so on balance, I think it might be something like a P-47. But that still doesn't look right, for some reason...

Thread: FW-190 builders thread......
21/10/2011 14:04:53
Posted by Dougy Giro on 21/10/2011 13:15:04:

I was thinking of a 75 IC? Would this be sufficent? I'm not sure how tyou work it out? Wing loading, palne weight etc comes into it soemhow!

Hi, I looked at this before deciding on the Spitfire;Brian Taylor used to fly a FW 190 of very nearly the same size and weight with a Merco .61 two stroke, and a Laser 70 four stroke has more performance all round so I was going to use one of those - an OS 70 FS doesn't have quite as much power (have one of those as well) but it's not bad and would probably be fine. Wasn't sure what sort of 75 you were thinking of but a 75 two stroke would (I think) be a bit of a handful.
Hope this helps...
Thread: 62.5 Inch Tony Nijhuis Spitfire Build Log.
19/10/2011 15:21:57

> Hi Andy, I'd love to see some pictures!
Better late than never, I suppose. You must spend every waking hour at the building board!
This is the basic wing structure (webbing not yet added, but retract bearers and retracts checked for fit) that has been assembled without any packing pieces of any kind using odourless cyano and Superphatic. Amazingly, it's nearly straight, apart from a small amount of washin on the last couple of rib bays:

...and here are the packing pieces made from 1/8" balsa; I'm using 6.3mm (1/4") at W1, 10 mm at W6 and 7mm at W11 which should give about 1 degree washout at W6 and about 2.5 degrees washout at W11.

Dunno yet if it's going to work as advertised (can't try it until the false LE is shaped because it gets in the way), thought it was possibly worth sharing though.
08/10/2011 10:47:30
I've just started the Spitfire build and am doing the wings first, I've come across the same "floating trailing edge" problem - I don't think I can build two straight wings that way.
What I've done is to make a couple of packing strips that sit just in front of the aileron spar and the 6x3 obechi rear spars to keep the ribs aligned (with a bit of washout added). Am planning to add the bottom wing skin first, followed by the top skin whilst the wing structure rests on the packing strips to make sure the wings stays straight.
Like your use of Lego...

Edited By Andy Blackburn on 08/10/2011 10:48:26

Thread: Pick a Plane 2011 - chat and FW-190 build
13/02/2011 18:05:48
I'd be very happy with any of the major FW190 variants, but would prefer (by a short head) the 190D, which I would describe as "characterful" rather than "butt ugly". Would also prefer not to have the tailwheel dangling in flight but I guess that practicality may dictate otherwise.
15/01/2011 20:46:21

<Clive Kerr wrote>
> The Fw-190, a front runner here : there is a Brian Taylor
> plan at 60.25 ", so what is the point of a Tony Nijhuis one at 60" ?
 Brian Taylor's plan is for an A, I don't believe there's an equivalent plan available for a FW 190 D?  A plan that was the same size as the BT FW 190 A could use the same retracts and (with a longer nose) would probably be a little more practical.
01/01/2011 22:27:42
Kiwi g wrote:
> As someone else said they were going to wait to see what
> top runners were so they could then vote for the one that
> was more likely to be built. Betting on the mosquito getting
> a lot more votes now.
But if we're voting for a shortlist (I assume we are), then it doesn't matter which one gets most votes, it only matters that they make it onto the shortlist.

31/12/2010 11:20:45
Clive Kerr wrote

>  The fighter is designed to be unstable, to whizz in, stab
> someone in the back, then  bravely run away. Not the
> formula for a scale model which will do genteel
> aerobatics and land slowly. Why not go for something which
> does ? Something which will also be simple to build...
 A fair point, but in order to get people to build it, it has to look attractive enough to push their buttons (as it were) and inspire them to start the build. If we're going for a short-list (as I believe we are) then surely it's better not to artificially restrict choice to a "sensible" subject? There will be a chance for sanity to prevail at the final voting stage.
Thread: Pick a Plane 2011
25/12/2010 18:17:53
1. Fairey Swordfish for .60-.70 4s or electric:

 2. Hawker Hunter T.Mk 7 EDF with a decent low pitching moment airfoil and washout so that it can also be flown off a slope:

 3. (...after much thought) Messerschmidt 109 G, preferably a late model such as a G-10:

Edited By David Ashby - RCME Administrator on 31/12/2010 06:45:07

Thread: Pick a Plane 2011 - chat and FW-190 build
24/12/2010 13:33:13
Couple of observations (apropos nothing)
Please can we have whatever-it-is designed for both IC and electric, unless its an EDF? I fly both.
Whatever we end up with, I'd really prefer not to have to adapt it for retracts that move through more than 90 degrees in order to get the wheels to retract all the way into the wheel wells; if that's what it requires (which was the case with both the Typhoon and Hurricane) then I'd much prefer that it was designed from the outset for a 95 or 96 degree retract system (e.g. Unitracts) in the first place.
Thread: Hangar 9 RV-8
13/02/2010 10:40:10
On the face of it, quality is more-or-less OK (apart from the usual wonky clevises with holes that aren't central), but I have the following observations;

1. The cowl is quite thin with pre-drilled fixing holes, but it didn't line up with the fuselage contour at the start of the hatch (there was a step of a couple of mm in places). It needed a thin strip of balsa on the top of F1 to make everything line up.
2. The RV-8 has a balance problem. Even with a 4000mAh battery as far forward as practical, it required 2.5+ ounces of lead in the nose to get the balance right.
3. A couple of washers had to be inserted under the motor stand-offs, because they weren't quite long enough and the spinner was rubbing on the cowling on one side.
4. My instructions (I have an early product) are a bit vague on exactly where the canopy should be positioned.
5. The cowling and motor are installed as per the instructions, but the prop-shaft exits the cowling about 5mm too high. The lower cowling holes have to be elongated and the cowling swung upwards in order to produce the correct spinner-cowling line. I think the fault here is in the cowling and firewall because the top-cowling line looks fine.
6. The Hangar 9 RV-8 has a weight problem. The manual says it should weigh "6.5 - 7 lb", the claim on the box top is "6.5 - 7.25 lb" but the actual weight in electric form, ready to fly with a 4s4000 Hyperion G3 LiPo is actually 7.7 lb.
7. Last but not least, all the control surfaces appear to be slightly too thick for the flying surfaces (so the leading edges stand proud of the wing surface). The flaps and ailerons and are pre-hinged in such a way that they protrude above the top surface of the wing by between 0.5 and 1.7 mm. If I'd noticed this at the time of purchase, I'd have rejected the model and asked to see another one.

I could have checked for that last problem in the shop but to be honest, all I could see was a nice shiny model, glinting under the flourescent lights...

I've had a couple of Hangar 9 models and on balance, I'd characterize them as well thought-out with a quality feel (apart from a few small components), but I think their quality control is no more than average.
Thread: Osmose 70 - covering idea
27/09/2009 09:09:13
Ok, perhaps I should have said "paint or clear varnish or similar".
The point I was making (trying to make) is that there's no point in going to all that trouble constructing a colour scheme from multiple layers of film which should be fuel-proof and then having to get out the spray equipment that you would have had to use if you hadn't covered it in film. And in any case, clear polyurethane is fuel-resistant, not fuel-proof.
13/09/2009 11:06:24
I haven't tried it (what's the point of covering a model in heat-shrink film and them spraying it with paint... ) but what I did with mine was:
a) go over the entire model with a covering iron, set as hot as it would go without wrinkling (some of the covering was barely adhering to the surface), then
b) go over all the covering edges with Solarfilm Prymol - only put on enough to cover the overlap.
That seems to have done it; I did miss a few edges and they've since lifted.
Thread: Kyosho spitfire 50
13/09/2009 11:01:09
Posted by Delta Whiskey on 11/09/2009 08:49:58:
Not being funny or anything and this is probably a question for the admins here, but if there are several consumers reporting the same failing from a manufactuer, can we not as a group send off a constructive compliant, after all this is also a source of advertising too on here, and as such I'm sure they would be interested?

Edited By Delta Whiskey on 11/09/2009 08:50:57

That's a very tolerant attitude you have there....
As far as I'm concerned, if there have been two or more reported failures of a similar nature on the same ARTF (from reputable sources), I wouldn't touch it. I'd also be vary wary of similar models from the same manufacturer.
Getting together a petition and contacting the manufacturer is unlikely to change matters; that's what they have Customer Service departments for. I suggest that the only way we're going to get better ARTFs is to publicize the faulty ones and then don't buy them!
Thread: Kyosho Osmose 70
11/07/2009 15:36:13
I bough a Kyosho Osmose 70 last year and I have to say it's possibly the nicest ARTF that I've ever flown.
There are a few minor niggles but they really are minor;
1. The covering is multi-layered and wasn't stuck down properly. I had to go over it with an iron (NOT a heat gun) and then stick all the overlaps down with Solarfilm Prymol.
2. The fuselage appeared to be twisted very slightly so that one of the wing seats had to be adjusted to get the wing dead square with the fin and stabiliser.
In-flight handling with standard digital servos and a Spektrum Rx is very, very good. The undercarriage seems to be fine, although the spats have been junked and the 2" wheels replaced with 2.75".
Power is an O.S. FL 70 which is only just enough on 10% nitro, ideally it should have something like a Saito 82. Getting the balance point far enough back with a non-pumped engine set-up is a bit of an issue, I had to install the battery (1500 mAh) at the wing trailing edge above the servos.
Overall - expensive, but worth it. Never though I'd say that about an ARTF .
Thread: Hangar 9 Showtime 50
10/07/2009 22:41:39

The usual u/c fix seems to be
1. BEFORE ASSEMBLY, examine the undercarriage mount
2. If it isn't at least 6mm good-quality ply, take the covering off and replace it with 1/4 inch aircraft-quality ply.
Of course, we shouldn't have to do this...
10/07/2009 12:36:45
About a year and a half ago I bought a Hangar 9 Showtime 50 as my first I/C model for about 20 years; it was a nice model with very good manners and reasonable performance with a an OS 55 AX, but it was quite heavy and could really have done with something like a Saito 82.
However, the undercarriage wasn't well thought-out. The supplied wheels and spats were far too small and were thrown away in favour of a pair of 3 inch wheels. The undercarriage legs are very long but the undercarriage mounting plate is two layers of laminated, fairly soft lite ply and just isn't up to the job; I damaged mine after a slightly heavy landing which should have resulted in nothing more than some slightly bent undercarriage legs.
Rather than repeat everything here, the full story is on a Showtime 50 Undercarriage thread at the Slough club website, but the damage was obvious when the covering was stripped away:

I had to make a replacement undercarriage mounting plate and a doubler for the front former from 1/4" ply (to the accompaniment of much bad language) which were installed with 30 minute epoxy, and this did the trick.
The only other real gripe I have is that the recommended engine size is "2-stroke .40-.52, 4-stroke.56-.82". This is just fanciful nonsense - a 6 1/4 pound model of that size is not going to have a "remarkable 3D performance"
 on a .40.
I am vastly unimpressed by the design of many ARTFs - superficially they're nice and shiny and the instruction manuals are usually impeccable, but sometimes they're just not fit for purpose.

Edited By Andy Blackburn on 10/07/2009 12:37:52

Thread: OS 46 LA inverted, won't idle
24/02/2009 18:40:21

After much faffing around, it looks very much to me as though the issue is with the fuel tank height - on close inspection , fuel is dripping from the spray bar and I think the tank is just just too high for an inverted set-up with an engine  that has a cheap carb, it might or might not be any better with a more sophisticated engine.
I've got it to the point where the top end is fine and the idle has been adjusted to be as good as it's going to get, using the procedure described in the O.S. manual. However, it still stops in flight after about 10-15 seconds of idle, or when spinning (this after testing with a variety of plugs, including an O.S. A3 and 8, and a Taylor plug with an idle bar). I must admit, if I'd had a box of matches at the field today I'd have rescued the 2.4 GHz Rx(es) and set fire to what was left .

Thread: Fokker DVII by Flair
15/02/2009 16:09:33

That looks really fantastic! Glad the first flight went OK.
Thread: Building the Balsacraft Hurricane
15/02/2009 16:03:45
> Any questions or comments from all welcome.

You did ask!
I had one of these a while back for slope use, it was a really nice build. I eventually flew it into a barbed wire fence and gave away the bits. It went like the clappers off the slope but there's a couple of things that you might like to be aware of.
1. The wing bolt plate pulls out at the slightest opportunity; this is a fault,if it was meant to break in a crash it'd have been a frangible bolt plate arrangement as on the phase 6. I seem to remember that I used some 1/16" ply cladding on the outside of the 2mm ply box structure (which always seems to break at the corner of the "lightening" holes), and bonded everything in place with white glue and lots of 1/2" triangle stock.
2.  The fuselage is a bit weak. I fixed mine with two bits of 1/4" x 1/8" spruce in the corners of the battery box, extending from as far forward as possible to aft of the former at the wing root trailing edge. You might be able to do something with some smaller-section carbon rod or tube.
3. The wing has been enlarged but - as far as I can tell - the tailplane hasn't been enlarged to the same extent, it at all. The real one wasn't stable in pitch anyway which was partly why it was so maneuverable, and I couldn't get the c.g. of the model aft of about 28.5% MAC without it becoming unstable. The side effect of this was that it required constant re-trimming and tended to lift its nose in lift - like the real one, it had to be 'flown' all the time. This behavior might not bother you but if you have any doubt, a slightly larger tailplane wouldn't hurt. It might make the enlarged wing a little less noticeable as well.
Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Sussex Model Centre
electricwingman 2017
Wings & Wheels 2019
Cambridge Gliding Club
Advertise With Us
Do you use a throttle kill switch?
Q: This refers to electric-powered models but do you use a throttle kill switch?


Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us