Here is a list of all the postings brokenenglish has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
For the last 8 years, I've been using Spektrum Tx with Orange receivers from HK Europe. Many, many flying hours and I've never had any problem whatsoever.
|Thread: Does anyone remember...|
My first engine came from Bud Morgan. A Frog 150, bought by post in 1951.
Later (early sixties), I was lucky enough to live fairly close to Cutriss's Model Shop in Doncaster. Probably the best model shop I've ever seen.
|Thread: Ebay sellers...|
Wonderful stuff Peter. Thanks a lot!
|Thread: new to wash out|
Mark, Thanks for the super video. I've never lived anywhere close enough to a possible PSS site to make it a reasonable possibility, so I've never been interested, but that Vulcan flying is superb!
I haven't read through the thread, but I suspect that you didn't put in the washout correctly.
On an aileron wing like this one, it's important to NOT pack up the trailing edge tip, but to build with the trailing edge flat on the board, and get the washout by packing up the leading edge at the wing root.
The difference between the two "methods" is not very important on a non-aileron wing but, with ailerons, it's important for the reason that you discovered! Unless the ailerons are only on the outer part of the wing, in which case you can build flat, and set a couple of degrees of up on each aileron.
|Thread: Has anyone got a DB Tiger Moth plan|
There are several DB Tiger Moths. At least two are on Outerzone. You just have to download the plan.
|Thread: Adding nose weight|
I would prefer the 350g on the firewall!
Edited By brokenenglish on 22/06/2020 10:14:12
|Thread: What size to print plans without a scale tab|
I don't see where the problem is. Plans on Outerzone are full-size (and the correct size), unless stated otherwise.
This means that, if you print the plan at 100%, you get the plan at exactly the right size. It's worked for me, very many times, but I always tile print my own.
|Thread: la.40 in an Acrowot artf?|
I'm flying an Acrowot artf with an Irvine 53 purchased new on eBay. It's perfect. Loads of power!
|Thread: The great i.c. / electric finger chopping debate|
Sounds like a PAW to me!
|Thread: New EDF Mini Jets- Jet Provost & Folland Gnat|
I'm following this thread, as I really like the models but, honestly, flying a sport plane shouldn't involve all this high-tech (for me!) research and testing.
RTF EDF planes seem to fly without too much hassle, so where's the problem?
|Thread: Need a new fuel pump (glow fuel)|
About 5 years ago, I urgently needed a fuel pump.
At least 5 years later, the pump is still working perfectly.
|Thread: Max Thrust Riot versus Wot4|
OK - Enough.
Please stop this ridiculous Riot knocking. The early posts in this thread were pitiful with irrelevant and subjective "reasoning", to an extent that I considered it wasn't worth answering.
At the time, I had simultaneously assembled (and subsequently flown) a Riot and a Wot 4 foamie. IMO, the Riot is very superior in every area, with the exception of the wheel axles(!). Just extract both planes from their boxes simultaneously, and compare them, part by part. The Wot 4 is extremely flimsy in relation to the Riot, particularly the tail surfaces and the area around the motor mount. The front end of the Wot 4 is very weak indeed and any "one pointer", even in soft grassy ground, will cost you the model.
A couple of other points:
Secondly, you weren't comparing the "Riot" with anything. You were comparing an excellent electric foamie with an equally excellent IC powered built-up model, and the differences between these two types of plane were considered to be defects in the Riot...
Now consider the Wot 4 foamie. It's obviously an excellent design, but the kit design is very poor.
One last point, I now have experience with a lot of Wot 4 foamies, because I've had to replace the plane at least 6 or 8 times over the last 8 years. But I only have experience with one Riot, because the first one is still flying, and has never needed any repair whatsoever, after a year of intensive "hack" flying. I really am totally satisfied with it (except for the wheel axles, but I had plenty spare from the crashed Wot 4s!).
So please, give us a rest from your Riot knocking harping...
Edited By brokenenglish on 07/06/2020 15:20:09
Edited By brokenenglish on 07/06/2020 15:22:40
|Thread: Junior 60 Electric Version|
Thanks for that Pat.
|Thread: Radio Queen.|
Ernst, as I mentioned before, you're a victim of various people writing "any nonsense" over the years and, as you say, it's continuing today.
Anyway, to try to sort you out.
The Radio Queen wing span is 82".
The channel crossing plane was basically the ED kit model (now the Ben Buckle plan), with modifications for the long range flight. Again, as I mentioned before, these modifications are not properly documented.
Concerning the actual flight, and the modifications, you should accept the report in the Aeromodeller December 1954. This gives a lot of details and, as far as I know, is 100% correct (the information and photos were provided by Sid Allen and George Honnest-Redlich, who were the major operators present.
Finally, my own advice would be to stop reading any nonsense and to stay with the original report and plan.
Oh dear! Humble apologies to all.
Martin, I've changed the status from "Private" to "Unlisted". I think it should work now, and it's a great little sequence!
And Thanks for reporting it. I can obviously see it OK. I thought "Private" made it available to anyone that I gave the link to, and I thought that posting in the forum was "giving the link".
Just to be sure. Here it is again. Great stuff!
Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 15:50:16
Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 15:53:00
Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 15:57:26
|Thread: VQ models|
I've have/had four VQ models and I'm very pleased with the general quality and flying. The only (fairly minor) problem is this covering...
I think it's justified for scale models (e.g. Hurricane), where the printing appears to be a cost-effective way of reproducing camoulage and other markings, etc. The problem, for me, is that the same system is applied to sport models (Stick & Maracana), which would be infinitely better covered in normal film.
Another point is that the covering appears to be the reverse of heat-shrink. It goes slack when heated, and retightens when it cools off.
|Thread: Radio Queen.|
Ernst, first of all, you need to define your reference. Over the years, people everywhere have written many things that are either correct, or partially correct and partially wrong, or totally wrong. If you adopt all such "sources" as a reference, the result can only be confusion.
I didn't know the people involved at the time, but I do remember the channel crossing and I did know Ben Buckle.
So first, please define which Radio Queen you want:
When you've decided which reference you want, then work on that basis and stop observing that there are other versions and minor build differences between individual examples (I think these are what you're calling "discrepancies"!). This just causes confusion.
If you choose the ED kit version or Colonel Taplin's original as the reference, there is no problem, as the plans are available. However, if you choose the channel crossing plane, you'll have a problem because, as far as I know, the modifications and changes made were not documented, no plan exists for that particular plane, and you will only have photographs, etc. Plus the fact that you don't need fuel tanks in the wings, etc.
Finally, something you'll enjoy. I've extracted a short video sequence from a 1949 Pathé movie, which shows Peter Cock flying the prototype ED kit version, in 1949. The look of happiness and satisfaction on his face, when he realises that he has a successful flight, is pure magic. Note also that this plane flew, and even took off, with a 1948 ED 2.5cc diesel, and the radio gear must have been very heavy...
Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:25:16
Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:28:11
Ernst, I'll be back with some more info tomorrow. It's too late now.
But the RQ doesn't have a tail skid. It has a tail wheel, mounted fairly forward, about 15 or 20 cm forward of the tailplane.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!