By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

Radio Queen.

Old Timer R.C.

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Steve Hargreaves - Moderator03/06/2020 14:29:11
avatar
Moderator
6764 forum posts
197 photos

Sounds like a great project Ernst....we wish you well....

One of the UKs traditional kit suppliers Ben Buckle Vintage Kits offer a kit of the Radio Queen... **LINK**

And there is a copy of the plan to download from the Outerzone Plans Website alongside some details of another epic crossing.. **LINK**

Maybe these will be of use/interest thumbs up

Edited By Steve Hargreaves - Moderator on 03/06/2020 14:29:56

Ernst Grundmann03/06/2020 16:44:48
7 forum posts

Thanks for your info.

We have the Outerzone plans, these are our starting point. One of our members has the model from a Ben Buckle kit, he can not find the plans any more but there are to many discrepancies with the original model.

We really hope that there are some people that know about the original model.

brokenenglish03/06/2020 17:58:30
avatar
572 forum posts
30 photos

Ernst, I don't know what you mean by "discrepancies".

To be complete: The original plan was drawn by Colonel Taplin in the late forties. This first plan is easily identified by rounded tips on the fin and tailplane.

The original was almost immediately modified (in 1949) for production as an ED kit. This plan is virtually identical to the original Taplin plan, but is identifiable by the squared off tips on the fin and tailplane.

This second (ED kit) plan was photocopied by Ben Buckle, who added a simple modern radio installation.

The best plan of all (my opinion) is the very slightly updated one drawn by Skystone plans (JJ), in the USA. This is very close to the original versions but with a few sensible and very minor updates (e.g. saddle clamp undercarriage attachment). This plan is available on Outerzone.

I have all these plans, and there are no really significant differences, which is why I questioned your term "discrepancies"...

David Davis03/06/2020 18:20:53
avatar
3764 forum posts
719 photos

Perhaps Ernst is confused by the picture of the Radio Queen in the ED advert which made reference to the cross Channel flight. The model in the advert has a pointed fin but the model which crossed the Channel obviously had the squared off fin and horizontal tailplane the same as the Ben Buckle kit and every other Radio Queen I've ever seen including my own. Perhaps these were the discrepancies Ernst was referring to.

radio queen and t240, forton, 2007..jpg

There is some debate as to whether the Channel crossing model had a straight dihedral or a flat centre section. It's well known that fuel was stored in the wings so maybe extra fuel was contained in the centre section as well as the tranparent wing tanks shown in the photograph.

Best of luck with the venture Ernst. Will you be flying it single channel?

brokenenglish03/06/2020 19:24:26
avatar
572 forum posts
30 photos

David, I don't know where you've seen any "debate"... I've never seen any such suggestion.

Anyway I checked. I have a close-up photo in front of me and it's very clear that the cross-channel model definitely had the "Vee" centre section, with the wings joined exactly as per the plan. There is no "flat centre section".

Ernst Grundmann03/06/2020 20:47:04
7 forum posts

The discrepancies are the rudder, the tail skid, the nose of the model and some other minor changes.

Just to be sure I downloaded the drawing from Outerzone and it does differ from the drawing I already have.

The nose and some other changes are marked on this drawing so I can change my drawing accordingly. But the rudder still remains and I do not know what the original wingspan was. As I wrote before I found 4 different sizes.

It is our intention to build the model as close to the original as we can. Some changes may be necessary but we want to avoid this if we can.

brokenenglish03/06/2020 21:58:50
avatar
572 forum posts
30 photos

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.

Ernst Grundmann03/06/2020 22:47:48
7 forum posts

The original model that crossed the channel had a tail skid. The almost mid fuselage weel is a change that has been made later. It is possible that the tail skid was only on the channel crossing model because it is lighter than a weel and weight was (is?) a very big issue here.

But you are right it is late and I will be back tomorrow afternoon. Thanks for your help so far, we appreciatie it very much.

David Davis04/06/2020 06:10:02
avatar
3764 forum posts
719 photos
Posted by brokenenglish on 03/06/2020 19:24:26:

David, I don't know where you've seen any "debate"... I've never seen any such suggestion.

Anyway I checked. I have a close-up photo in front of me and it's very clear that the cross-channel model definitely had the "Vee" centre section, with the wings joined exactly as per the plan. There is no "flat centre section".

Quite right Brian, the model which crossed the Channel had a Vee centre section as per plan and as per every Radio Queen I've ever seen, but somewhere in the back of my mind I had a memory of someone referring to a flat centre section on a Radio Queen and I found it here over on RC Groups Post 28. **LINK** .This thread started off discussing Col Taplin's electric powered Radio Queen then deviated off into discussion of the Channel Crossing and Radio Queens in general. Apparently there is a replica Radio Queen in the Academy of Model Aeronautics Museum in Muncie Indiana.

At the end of the RCG thread, there are a couple of posts from an Australian modeller who built a replica of the model which crossed Channel, powered by an ED Hunter diesel and guided by a restored ED ground based transmitter modified to 2.4Ghz.

Finally, there are two written accounts of the flight in the RCG thread. The American account of the flight, written 45 years after the event, claims that the model took 8 minutes to reach 1000 feet (305 metres.) The Aeromodeller account, written at the time, claims that the model took 20 minutes to reach 900 feet (274 metres.) Either way the Channel Crossing Radio Queen was no "homesick angel!"

brokenenglish04/06/2020 10:05:57
avatar
572 forum posts
30 photos

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.
For example, when you say that the channel crossing model had a tail skid, you're right, but when you say that the tail wheel was added later, you're wrong. The original had a tail wheel and I think all the various versions have a tail wheel, except for the channel crossing plane.

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:
1. The original Colonel Taplin's.
2. The ED kit version, which has become the generally accepted reference, thanks to Ben Buckle, or
3. The channel crossing plane.

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...
A wonderful piece of video! Have a look:

Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:25:16

Edited By brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:28:11

Phil Green04/06/2020 10:55:23
avatar
1598 forum posts
339 photos

A nice period radio would complement the Radio Queen & make the whole experience more enjoyable, have you thought about a refit or a reproduction? These old girls dont look right propping up a DX18

You might not fancy S/C but a reeds set or very early propo would be more appropriate, lots of ideas on mode-zero

Cheers wink
Phil

Ernst Grundmann04/06/2020 14:02:34
7 forum posts

@Brokenenglish.

Our reference is the model that crossed the channel. As far as I knew this was the original model but thanks to you all I have tons more info and I now know this was not the original model. Our thought was that this model was purposely designed for the flight across the channel and I thought so too.

This put things in an other perspective and also makes things a lot more difficult. Obvious things like the tail skid and some other small outside things will be easy to duplicate. But details inside and other changes that are not documented can not or very difficult be copied.

Your video is not visibel for me the "owner" must give me permission to view it. ????

 

@Phil Green.

We have been thinking about an original transmitter and receiver. These are no longer available but I am pretty sure that we have enough electronics people in our club that will be able to build a working transmitter and receiver. That is if we still can get the parts we need, that can be a problem.

But there is a bigger problem with this old equipment. As I mentioned before there are much, much, very much more radio signals in the air right now. The receiver is absolutely not selective enough to differentiate between all these signals. The receiver will go crazy en control over the aircraft will be very tricky. This is why we will use 35MHz equipment.

Maybe later I can explain more about why we choose this frequency about 4 years ago for our escapades.

Also I want to apologize for my English. This is not my native language so sometimes I will make mistakes.

Edited By Ernst Grundmann on 04/06/2020 14:06:49

Martin_K04/06/2020 14:44:19
170 forum posts

Posted by brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:05:57:

Finally, something you'll enjoy. I've extracted a short video sequence ......

In confirmation of what Ernst says, YouTube reports that the video is "Private". I cannot play it. I have no YouTube account to sign in with.

brokenenglish04/06/2020 15:43:32
avatar
572 forum posts
30 photos
Posted by Martin_K on 04/06/2020 14:44:19:

Posted by brokenenglish on 04/06/2020 10:05:57:

Finally, something you'll enjoy. I've extracted a short video sequence ......

In confirmation of what Ernst says, YouTube reports that the video is "Private". I cannot play it. I have no YouTube account to sign in with.

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!
If it still doesn't work, Paste this URL in your browser:  https://youtu.be/MPexNpSfuQQ

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

Martin_K04/06/2020 16:54:35
170 forum posts

Video working now thanks.

The TX aerial is so large the cameraman has to pan up to get it all in shot!

Ernst Grundmann04/06/2020 21:45:25
7 forum posts

Hello,

Reading the articles you showed me makes me a bit worried. There are quite some differences between the articles.

In one article the wingspan is 6 feet, in the other it is 7 feet. In one article the tanks held 24 ounces in total. In an other article is it 3 pints, a lot more!

In one article the start was good and the model climbed away in a steady climb. In an other article it just barely got in the air and sort of nosedived over the cliff edge. Sid Allen needed all his skills to keep the aircraft under control.

There are more differences but I can not write them all down here. It seems to me that the writers (journalists?) had some problems with telling the real story, this is still the case now a days I am afraid.

This makes it more difficult for us to build the model as much as possible the same as the model that crossed the channel.

Thanks so far and if there is something you want to know please ask.

I will keep an eye on this forum and if I need help again I will put the question(s) here hoping you can help me as you have done the last couple of days.

Also I will keep you informed about the progress of our project.

Edited By Ernst Grundmann on 04/06/2020 21:46:24

Edited By Ernst Grundmann on 04/06/2020 21:47:47

brokenenglish05/06/2020 06:41:51
avatar
572 forum posts
30 photos

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.
This report describes the celluloid fuel tanks in the wings and various other things.

Finally, my own advice would be to stop reading any nonsense and to stay with the original report and plan.

Phil Green05/06/2020 12:03:17
avatar
1598 forum posts
339 photos
Posted by Ernst Grundmann on 04/06/2020 14:02:34:

@Phil Green.

We have been thinking about an original transmitter and receiver. These are no longer available but I am pretty sure that we have enough electronics people in our club that will be able to build a working transmitter and receiver. That is if we still can get the parts we need, that can be a problem.

But there is a bigger problem with this old equipment. As I mentioned before there are much, much, very much more radio signals in the air right now. The receiver is absolutely not selective enough to differentiate between all these signals. The receiver will go crazy en control over the aircraft will be very tricky. This is why we will use 35MHz equipment.

Maybe later I can explain more about why we choose this frequency about 4 years ago for our escapades.

Sorry if I wasnt clear Ernst, our repro sets and refits are on either 2.4g or 35mhz.

Take a look at just a few of the many reproductions made by our members:
www.modelflying.co.uk/albums/member_album.asp?a=53456

There are many more on the mode-zero forum and www.singlechannel.co.uk

If you cant find an old radio to convert, a reproduction project like this would complement the Radio Queen perfectly

Cheers
Phil

 

 

Edited By Phil Green on 05/06/2020 12:23:29

Ernst Grundmann05/06/2020 16:50:55
7 forum posts

In our club there is also a group of people that do exactly the same thing. One of our members has designed and made several singel channel transmitters that use normal 2.4GHz transmitter modules and receivers. It is great to see this working perfectly and to see how model airplanes where controlled in the fifties and sixties.

But this is not what we have in mind. As I wrote we really have checked if it was possible to build a transmitter and receiver exactly the same as used in 1954. The first problem we encountered was getting the important parts like the tubes and the reeds. This proved quite difficult but there was somebody who claimed he could find or make the tubes but for a price! How much I don't (want to) know.
The next problem was getting a licence to use it. Normally it is not allowed to use a home build radio control transmitter here in The Netherlands. Only in special cases one might get a licence.
The next and biggest problem is the very poor selectivity of the receiver and the very large bandwidth the transmitter uses. One transmitter would almost completely "swamp" the whole frequency band used. Because of this the chances we will get permission to use it are very close to zero.

Al in al we use 35MHz Futaba equipment that has proven to be very reliable. Flying with only rudder and elevator trim would complement this project but not every member of our club can control a model this way.
Maybe I should explain more about what we do and how we do it but this will go very much off-topic! Should I start a new topic for this in a more suitable part of this forum?

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Support Our Partners
Slec
electricwingman 2017
CML
Sussex Model Centre
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Has home isolation prompted you to start trad' building?
Q: The effects of Coronavirus

 Yes - for the first time
 Yes - but Ive bashed balsa before
 No - Ive existing projects on the bench
 No - Im strictly an ARTF person

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E!