Here is a list of all the postings brokenenglish has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: mercury mentor build|
Yes. In rubber model competitions, models are often being timed towards the end of their flights, fairly low over the horizon and some distance away. The diamond configuration gives a greater side area for visibility.
Another practical point is that rubber models always need downthrust and they are generally trimmed with right sidethrust as well. The diamond configuration makes it easier to get down and right thrust at the same time.
Yes, I built a lot of diamond fuselages in my Open Rubber days (sixties).
A diamond fuselage for a rubber model is built as a basic square fuselage, and is simply turned through 45° before the wing, tail and fin mountings are arranged.
The Mentor is a good model, although I always found that carving two identical folding prop blades is easier than trying to perfectly balance a single-blade folder, which I was never able to do to my own satisfaction. So personally I would make the prop as a DBF (double bladed folder).
Edit: I've just looked at the Mentor plan (I've never built one). The wing mounting pylon and prop hub are very complex compared with the simpler arrangements normally used on competition open rubber models.
Edited By brokenenglish on 13/01/2021 18:28:59
|Thread: novice plan building|
Piers, you'll look a long time for a rubber powered Invader... Check your link.
Edited By brokenenglish on 12/01/2021 12:04:36
|Thread: Flying with Spectacles|
An anecdote to amuse you gentlemen (hopefully!).
Last Spring, just before the lockdown, I went for a quiet flying session, on my own, in a field close to home (10 min. walk).
It wasn't until I got to the "putting things away and tidying up" phase, at home, that I realised that I'd been through an entire flying session wearing my reading glasses...
Edited By brokenenglish on 11/01/2021 06:55:46
Edited By brokenenglish on 11/01/2021 06:57:19
|Thread: Control line section|
Rich, I obviously don't know how you go about things, but I just typed "Barton control line" in Google and I got the site immediately.
|Thread: Balsa Fuel Tank|
This idea isn't new. Balsa fuel tanks weren't rare on small CL models in the fifties. Just using plenty of dope and balsa cement works OK for a half-cc diesel. The real problem is handling, attaching and removing fuel tubing, etc.
The Aeromodeller article published with the "T-Tray" control liner plan (article available on Outerzone) gives detailed instructions, which are similar to the above, but limited to diesel fuel because of the lack of modern adhesives/finishes.
|Thread: Control line section|
The FF and CL enthusiasts mostly have their own Web sites.
If you're looking for RC modellers that occasionally dabble in a bit of nostalgia, you'll find that on here, but if you're looking for serious CL fliers, it has to be the Barton Web site.
|Thread: Why is epoxy like mustard?|
It's always better to leave a little unused, to provide a check that the adhesive has hardened properly, and to know exactly when it's sufficiently hardened, so that you can continue working.
|Thread: Vintage design - electrified?|
For Alan G., Ha ha, that's what I suspected! Note that the commonly seen video of the Colonel's electric RQ only shows a hand launch that looks like it didn't get away, otherwise the video would have been continued.
I won't bother with the various A/M RQ reports over the years, they've been posted loads of times, both on here and on other forums.
However, some of you may not have seen this video. From 26 seconds there is superb footage of Peter Cock flying his prototype modified RQ, with an ED 2.49cc side-port diesel. The look on his face when the thing is successfully flying around is priceless.
Alan, I didn't know that Col. Taplin crossed the channel with electric power in '57.
|Thread: ETA 29|
Apologies Paul, you're perfectly correct.
As you will gather, I like Eta 29s. I have at least one of every mark, except that I haven't got a Mk IV, which yours obviously is.
You'll find a full review and test of the Mk IV on the excellent Sceptre Web site. I remember when that test was first published (December '56). I was at school and we were all very impressed!
Paul, your "real" Eta is probably a very nice engine, but I think it's a mixture of parts from other engines.
|Thread: Testing Ignition|
Put simply, that means go back to glow, but using an OS G5 will allow you to still consider that you're flying petrol!
|Thread: Ben Buckle kits.|
I don't think you'll find any significant difference. Ben's plans are always simply the original plan, with minimum RC mods. If an original full-size plan was available, he just photocopied it and, if there was no full size plan, Ben redrew it exactly as per the original.
Also, from memory, I think there are a couple of LRB drawings on Outerzone, including the "Uncle Willie's" plan, which is probably the best drawing.
AFAIK, all the available drawings remain faithful to the original, I don't think anyone has "redesigned" anything.
|Thread: Ben Buckle Fokker D8 - Engine choice|
David, respectfully, IMO your power estimations are way too much!
The BB Fokker D8 is Earl Stahl's design (early forties). The original weighed 28 oz all up and was powered by a 1940 Ohlsson 23 turning a 12" prop. (I'm looking at the original magazine article as I type this).
The plane is very lightly constructed and an OS 20 or 26 FS would be just about perfect. Assuming that you're using modern lightweight RC, then your RC hardware will probably be lighter, or at least no heavier, than the spark ignition system used in the original plane.
Obviously, the plane needs to be built very light at the rear, so do exactly that and stop thinking that a load of nose ballast is unavoidable. That's not true. You need to forget "RC sport" culture a bit. The rear end needs to be built like a free flight model if you want to keep the model light and fly slowly.
It won't be an all-weather flier but you'll have a great plane for calm evenings.
|Thread: Avro Avian|
Just a thought.
There are two excellent Avro Avian biplane plans on Outerzone. If you print either of these plans at the size (wingspan) that you are building, then things like undercarriage leg patterns, etc. should be the same. Just tile printing (only the plan zone required) on a home PC would be perfectly OK.
Edited By brokenenglish on 06/12/2020 08:15:48
|Thread: ETA 29|
Mine are all OK.
|Thread: Ben Buckle kits|
Yes, those notes were written on the plan by Ben and are common knowledge among the vintage mob.
Ben is referring to the original American "Answer" and "Topper" design from 1940 (I think).
Thus, most people would consider Albert Hatfull's completely redesigned wing, to give the KK Scorpion, to be a great improvement.
The point I was making is that Steve, who runs Outerzone, doesn't publish the Ben Buckle Super Scorpion plan because Colin Buckle is still selling the plan and the kit.
However, an Eastern European intellectual decided to invent a Keil Kraft Kits Super Scorpion (which never existed of course) and drew his own plan, which he submitted to SAM US, and this is the plan that is on Outerzone.
Cultural nonsense but it's an excellent drawing.
Just a remark concerning the above posts.
The Super Scorpion plan on Outerzone isn't the Ben Buckle plan.
The plan on Outerzone has been redrawn, in Slovenia or Slovakia, again based on a 50% enlargement of the KK plan, but with a few minor mods. The result is almost the same as Ben's plan of course.
|Thread: Why Do We Blunt The Leading Edges Of Our Wings?|
David, it depends on the application. There are models with sharp leading edges that fly superbly, it's just that they're not yer average sport radio model.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!