cdub50

Well, it has been a while since i built a kit, but i did build several in the late '70s. and one of them was an Andrews Trainermaster. So entering into my next childhood (at 56) I have decided to take a stroll down memory lane and build a Trainermaster and Aeromaster. got the kits...but WOW, no detail instruction book. Now I would have swore i had one of these the first go around...but i guess i could be mistaken?

Any ideas...were there more detail instructions in some of the later kits?

There are of course some 'notes/and general instructions on the plans, but no way to tell order etc.

I can likely figure it out...but if anyone has any ideas about this (location of more detail instructions), that would be greatly appreciated.....

chris

R8893

My Feedback: (20)

I have built three Aeromasters and all I remember is a general construction sequence on a sheet that had maybe 20 photos of the plane under construction.

cdub50

can you make a recommendation on the wing configuration. the picture you included looks like top wing swept and bottom straight? i notice my options are also top wing 48" or 52".

Thanks,
Chris

R8893

My Feedback: (20)

Chris, my first two models had both wings at 48" span. All with bottom wing straight and swept top wing. This one has the top wing at 52" and bottom at 48". Have not flown it yet; throttle linkage problems last year and too much rain so far this year. Equal span wings flew well. Just wanted to be different this time, although all three had essentially the same paint scheme. Second model probably lasted 15 years before it just wore out and died.
Chuck

Carlos G

Hi Cdub50

You may want to check with Early RC models. They offer a trainermaster kit and may have info regarding the Aeromaster as well.

http://www.earlyrcmodels.com/

Hope this helps

Carlos G.

Zor

Are not the wingspans obvious on the plans (drawings) ?

Zor

cdub50

Zor, the aeromaster comes with plans for 3 different wing configurations....i was just getting opinions on what people have experienced with different wing configurations.

Rodney

The Andrews Airomaster was one of my favorite models, I built and flew 7 of them. I liked the swept upper wing best and maximum span. All flew superbly. I did find that all flew best with the upper wing at 1.5 degree less angle of attack than the lower wing had. This setting was quite noticeable and had a significant bearing on how well they flew. I had powered all of mine with a Fox .60, somewhat under powered by todays standards but I found that power quite acceptable.

Zor

Hi cdub50,

You are lucky that Rodney had enough aeromaster to be able to issue a comparison.
Only the same flier using the different wing configurations could give a valid comparison.

Thanks to Rodney for his post.

While the negative decalage between top and bottom wings helps the model behavior at low speeds approaching stall it kind of become irrelevant when the model is equipped with enough power to create nearly or as much thrust as the weight.

3D models do not need to be concerned with incidence angles and decalage angles.
We may say they fly on the thrust more than on the wings. They can be airborn at zero speed so the angles are useless.

___LOL

Zor