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: What is the minimum slope for a slope soarer?...|
Yes, but Pat's post reflects the fact that, in our part of the world, you get onshore winds more often on a "west coast" than on an "east coast".
Plus the fact that, IMO, successful dune soaring depends on identifying "special" spots that give "special" conditions, with a prevailing wind that is frequently "just right".
|Thread: Restoring an old Flair Junior 60, Help and Advice needed|
I think you'll need more rudder than that.
Ben Buckle used to say "very little elevator, but as much rudder as you can get".
Personally, I agree with that (after half a dozen J60s), especially with the precise control systems that we now have.
The most important thing is to realise that it's an ultra-stable, slow flying plane and that, providing you have "enough" control movement, the precise amount is very non-critical. I never ever actually measured the deflections on mine, and they all flew great.
So just be confident. Ben also used to say "I must have seen hundreds of J60s, and I've never seen one that didn't fly...".
Finally, like I said, and without being precise, all mine have been set up with about 45° each way on the rudder and about 20° up and down on the elevator (just eyeballing). In any case, everything happens very gently!
Edited By brokenenglish on 16/08/2019 17:30:45
|Thread: Skyleada Models|
You seem to be a victim of automatic spelling "corrections"...
|Thread: What have I got here ?????|
A point I forgot to mention. Note that you have a fuel cut-out, intended to be timer operated, on the tank.
A couple of relevant photos. Note that these things can be flown!
Harry, here's an Owat running on the bench. Video shot by my wife, without my noticing!
There are two types of Owat, a Mk I and a Mk II. The one shown in my video is a Mk I, but yours is a Mk II. They're identifiable by the prop driver. On the Mk I, the prop driver is "flat", and has a square hole that keys onto a square section on the crankshaft (i.e. a dead copy of the Micron). The Mk II prop driver is thicker. It simply has a taper that fits a taper on the crankshaft and depends on being tightened to lock in position. This system isn't as good as the Mk I, but I suppose it must have been cheaper to produce.
If you like a challenge, it'll be good fun to run on the bench!
Edited By brokenenglish on 06/08/2019 21:22:47
|Thread: Playboy Senior|
Edited By brokenenglish on 06/08/2019 08:32:10
This is very misleading. The old sparkers normally used are very light, far lighter than modern engines. Browns and Ohlssons weigh less than a modern engine of half their capacity. OK, the light weight of the old ignition engines is partially offset by the weight of the ignition system, but the engine + ignition system will still be lighter than a modern four-stroke.
The problem is more due to "modern" builders not realising that this type of model has to be built very light aft of the wing, and particularly at the tail end, obviously. Modern coverings don't help either... Then the problem is aggravated by the use of electric power, where the main motive power weight (the battery) isn't in the nose, but further back, at least behind the fire wall, and this is very significant in the case of a short-nose model.
My advice would be to get everything as far forward as possible. Then add whatever ballast is needed to get a CG at around 50%, and fly it like that. It should be fine.
|Thread: Svenson 1/6 Scale Storch|
Here's the plan:
|Thread: ETA 29|
OK, I was just looking at the crankcase and front housing, plus the s/n of course. It's obviously not possible to "identify" the internals!
Also, an original Mk V case doesn't look anything like that. It's very like the Mk VI, with a large V-shape transfer port.
However, I still think an engine should be identified by its main original components, and not by various mods that may have been incorporated!
Issue closed. They're all super engines!
Pat, respectfully (as always!), the Eta 29 shown in your photos is a Mk III, with a later Mk prop nut on it.
Paul, my Google must work better than yours. I found a couple of references.
Not many people, especially collectors, realise that Ken Bedford's Eta actually pre-dated American racing glow 29s.
Peter, do you still have your ST G21/29?
Edited By brokenenglish on 31/07/2019 08:51:10
Paul, a quick check would simply be the Eta serial number. This will immediately identify an original in relation to any copy, which probably won't have a s/n.
Edited By brokenenglish on 31/07/2019 07:56:59
and finally the last model made:
and a "mid-production" example:
Edited By brokenenglish on 30/07/2019 09:31:22
For the youngsters, who don't know what an Eta 29 is, and for the more senior gentlemen, many of whom regard the engine with great affection, here are three "significant" examples. Here's the first Eta 29
Edited By brokenenglish on 30/07/2019 09:27:46
Edited By brokenenglish on 30/07/2019 09:30:37
Yes, there was at least one Russian copy. Google "Russian Eta 29" and you'll get some answers.
Edited By brokenenglish on 30/07/2019 06:37:11
|Thread: Mill 75 electric set up|
Respectfully, if you're unsure of yourself to that extent, you'd be better choosing one of Vic Smeeds designs...
|Thread: New EDF Mini Jets- Sabre & MiG15 RCM&E 2018 Special|
Won't "nose on scales" affect the entry of air? Maybe you'd need standoffs between the scales and the nose.
|Thread: Planespotting Live|
I'd rather be in a field near Old Warden or Duxford.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!