abufletcher

Ten years ago I built my first RC model...which was also my first RC scale model. I began with a BUSA eindecker 40 kit but quickly abandoned that in favor of a scratch-built fuselage, rudder, and elevator. At the time I started it, I still hadn't solo'ed with my ARF RC trainer. And six months later, after only getting to fly it twice (with some assistance), I had to return to Japan and couldn't take it with me. So it was hung with care on the ceiling in my son's room...and there it stayed until January 2013! Now, finally, its time as a hanger queen is almost over.

Carefully padded and boxed it was checked and traveled with me from LAX to Taipei to Osaka to my hometown in Shikoku, Japan. As it stands, it needs some loving restoration but little actually reconstruction. Originally it had a Magnum 52 4-stroke but over the years that got so gummed up that not even the throttle arm moves. Luckily, my Saito 56 fits perfectly. The only bit of re-construction needed is to reconnect the two halves of the full-flying elevator. I actually broke these apart to fit it into the box, but I would have had to redo this anyway because I found the CF rod I had used could be twisted far to easily. There's certainly a lot of things I would have done differently, were I too build it again today. But considering it was my first attempt at WWI scale, it's not bad.

Initially my plan is to get it flying with the original fat BUSA wing (which I split in two and mounted on tubes). If that's successful, down the line, I would replace it with a scale wing with a wing-warping system. When I built it I allowed for this possibility with a functioning warping lever on the undercarriage and functional cable pulleys on the top pylon. I would just have to install another servo.

abufletcher

Oh, and Hobby People had the Airtronics RDS8000 on sale for $139 including a standard Rx, Tx battery, and switch. Considering that the Rx costs about $80 on it's own and the battery about $20, that's only about $40 bucks for a new Tx, so I just had to snap one up. This is my third one!

abufletcher

I'm particularly proud of the fully-functional, scale, sprung undercarriage. Unfortunately, the bungees (inside the fuselage) have gone a bit soft and it's going to take a bit of work to replace them. I built the gear long before I learned how to silver solder (or even regular solder) so I had to really think hard to come up with a solution. Another nice feature of this model is that the elevator pull-pull cables are connected to the control column (which in turn is moved by the elevator servo). And the pilot's hard/arm moves with the stick. The Rx battery is inside the pilot's chest.

wphilb

My Feedback: (10)

I for one would like to see your undercarriage design , any pics of that construction??

abufletcher

The build ended up being spread across several threads here on RCU:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_19...tm.htm#1973366

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_19.../anchor/tm.htm

Man, is that all a Blast from the Past!

TFF

Full circle. What was old is now new.

I am doing something similar with my TopFlite SE5a by re-engining it. It was always marginal with the open rocker OS engine, so I am adding HP the ugly way with a .60 2 stroke. I want it to be a flyer without wondering if it is going to stall in the climb-out. Clearing house with the marginal projects, but too good to not give it a second chance.

abufletcher

And what WAS new is now old!

abufletcher

BTW, one of those little EIII details that almost no one gets right: The wings had a cut-out to make room for the cheek cowls, not the other way around!

wphilb

My Feedback: (10)

Question about the functioning of the gear.

Flying Fox

... hmmmm, I seem to remember you've given me the impression you were not fond of WWI monoplanes

That's one fabulous looking Eindecker EIII!
Especially that you've bashed it from a BUSA kit. Lots of scale detail: coma shaped rudder, articulated control column and pilot and many small details. Actually, I'd say that was a fantastic job for your first scale build! You even allowed for a future upgrade to functioning wing warping.

Most would not realize the ailerons don't belong but they do make it quicker to build and get off the board and into the air. I'll have to look back through your build to see how you did the undercarriage. The Eindecker has always been one of my favourites, and I've nearly started one several times now. You certainly know your eindecker facts and scale details so I know whom to contact if I ever build one.

We spoken before about the scale Eindecker kit from Aerodrome RC. The manufacture states the outline is scale, do you concur?


The decade of weathering has just added to the look! Are you going to keep the covering or recover? Best of luck, and we hope to see it fixed up and flying soon.

abufletcher

That's correct. The genius of Fokker's design was to put the suspension at the top instead of down on the axle. This also means that each wheel has "independent suspension."

I think if you get the geometry right the wheels only travel up and down but not back and there shouldn't be any toe-in or toe-out. However, at full extension the bottom of the wheels would be canted inward and at full compression, the bottom would be canted outward. But that would be equally true, for example, with the Sopwith-style gear with the two-part axle hinged in the middle. On the model, I don't think this makes much difference.

abufletcher

It was the only practical choice at the time. I had six months to build a model before I returned to Japan. I had never built a flying biplane model before. I didn't know thing one about any of the tools or materials commonly used in scale modeling, for example, I'd never heard of solartex and didn't have a dremel tool when I started the project. At the time I was still just learning how to fly a typical high-wing trainer with lots of dihedral (the old RCM Trainer) and the thought of moving from that directly to a biplane seemed daunting. This also was the reasoning behind accepting the use of ailerons.

There's not much of the BUSA DNA in the final version. Just the wing, which I cut in half to allow a full cockpit. For the rest of the model, I enlarged the Joseph Nieto drawings of the EIII to fit the BUSA wingspan and scratch-built everything from those drawings.

As I told Matz on another thread, scale is relative. But to my eye, the AerodromeRC (66") looks generally right. The tail surfaces appear to be scale in shape and size, the body seems to have the right proportions, and the nose is the right length. At $165 for a short kit this seems like a good deal. However, it is designed with electric in mind and would needed to be beefed up a bit for glow...and the undercarriage would need to be upgraded from simple music wire. But it looks very good and I've thought many times about ordering one. I like that the design uses barndoor ailerons to mimic the look of wing-warping. You could even use fabric as the hinge to that there would be no visible separation.

I'll keep the covering, just give it a bit of a sponge bath and then a new coat of Nelson's Clear, which I hadn't heard of at the time. It was originally clear-coated with Minwax PolyC which I now know is not really fuel-proof and a few areas (around the gear) have become a bit gummy.

abufletcher

If you look closely at the inboard area of the starboard wing you can see a circular cut-out under the fabric. This was were I had intended to put a scale compass...but just ran out of time.

abufletcher

A tip of my hat to Bruce Bretschneider who suggested that a little blasting with a heat gun would free up the movement...and so it did! But at a hefty 7-8 pounds, moving up to the Saito 56 is probably a good idea...and in fact it's already installed. But it's always nice to have another engine....hmmm....

Flying Fox

You certainly bit off a big chunk to accomplish in a short timeline with your first scale build. That was a steep learning curve to climb. I can understand why the monoplane choice. I remember those days without a dremel tool - don't know how we did it.

Good choice with the drawings. From what I recal I think his drawings were extremely detailed. I think I have a book with many of those drawings somewhere in my filing cabinet.

Yes I can see that and now you have the time to do up a real nice one. Check out Teus' instrument faces for the German compass pattern (you probably already know of it).

But with you blowing the dust off it now and a scheduled makeover lined up it looks like you may have even developed a little passion now for WWI monoplanes! LOL

Looking forward to seeing the results of the upgrade, good luck!

Bri

abufletcher

As I mentioned above, my initial goal is just to get it flying again in more or less the same form. No upgrades. Then, if it does fly, I'll look into building that scale wing. But I don't think I'd put any more effort into it than that. If I were going to get serious about an EIII, I'd scratch-built a 1/4 scale version. As far as mono-wing WWI aircraft go, a few of the parasol types would be fun!

ma_mulcahy

abufletcher... your note about the Hobby People deal on the radio got me salivating. Unfortunately, I went to the website and found a $199 price tag. Do you have some sort of preferred customer deal with them?

abufletcher

I just walked into the store (in Orange, CA) on Jan. 2nd. I think it was a continuation of a Xmas sale. Technically, the sale dates might have been over but they gave me that price anyway. The RDS8000 is, I suppose, starting to get a little "long in the tooth" in the fast moving RC world, but it does everything I'll probably ever need a Tx to do.

abufletcher

The full-flying elevator is now repaired/upgraded and ready to attach to the fuselage. Originally, the main spar in the elevator halves was made of 5mm CF tube. So I decided to join the tube halves by gluing in a length of 3mm music wire rod, as far as the first riblet. But first, I needed a way to attach two control horns and have the whole thing rotate. First, I made a rotating "collar" with a length of 4mm brass tube inside a shorter length of 5mm aluminum tube. Then I drilled, cut, and shaped the control horns out of brass and slipped those over the ends of the 4mm brass tube (with the aluminum tube in place). This was all positioned in a jig and the horns were silver soldered to the brass tube (but of course the solder wouldn't adhere to the aluminum). The brass tube and horns turn freely inside the aluminum tube. Then I inserted the length of 3mm rod into the brass tube and silver soldered that in place. Next I roughed up the ends of the 3mm rod with a file to give the epoxy more "bite." Finally, with the elevator halves up on blocks of wood, I epoxied the 3mm rod into the CF tube.

Next, I need to figure out the best way of attaching the aluminum tube to the fuselage. I suppose I should have worked this out ahead of time, but that's sort of the way I build.

abufletcher

On the topic of the full-flying elevator, since there isn't any stabilizer to establish incidence, we need to consider the "default" position of the elevator relative to the wing. Normally on models, the stab/elevator is a couple of degrees (up to perhaps 3) positive relative to the wing. So I'm assuming that the pull-pull cables on a full-flying elevator should be initially be set up to provide a couple of degrees of "up" elevator (in terms of stick movement). On some models, however, the wing/tail incidences are set up at a relative 0/0, for example, +2 on the wing and +2 on the tail.

So what are your recommendations for an EIII? I don't believe I thought about this at all when it was first flown.

*****

I should note that for some reason I no longer remember, I built the elevators with a flat bottom and slightly curved top.

abufletcher

Elevator and rudder are installed. Rough radio gear setup on elevator, rudder, ailerons, and throttle. Everything still seems to be working. Next on to the (custom) tank installation and replacing the bungees on the UC.

ARUP

If disassembly isn't in the cards then squirt air tool oil or similar in it liberally. Bake in the oven at 225 for a good 30 minutes. One thing that can go south in a hurry is if a wrist pin on con-rod congealed or frozen and you run the engine. If you have a hot plate and tin can in which to put the engine then you can do this outdoors so you don't 'stink up' your place!

Your EIII is a sweet little bird!

Flying Fox

Looking good with the full-flying elevator! Thanks for the detailed description of how you did this. It always helps to read/see how this is done.

As for the relative tail-to-wing-to engine incidence, you need to know the relationship between all three, usually stated in reference to a longitudinal datum line along the fuselage or 90degrees to the firewall, or sometimes just stated to the thrust line which would then be considered odegrees.

Instead of guessing or eye-balling - and since you have used the original BUSA wing with its flat-bottomed and thicker rib profile, why not just consult the BUSA plans and establish the 3 incidences for the original set-up from the plans, go with that and then adjust/shim the elevator slightly + or - if needed.

If you don't have the plans, I'm sure someone on the forum would be of assistance.

BTW, what is the proper term for 'relative tail-to-wing-to engine incidence'? Is it longitudinal incidence?

Cheers,
Bri

TFF

I would set it at what you think is neutral. For me I would rather have a plane go out of trim where I needed to add up not down. Just as ling as you dont run out.

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

The term for wing to tail is"decalage".