dbodenheimer

Jeff, My memory is pretty dim, but as I recall, the plane rolled very slightly opposite the applied rudder. As for scaling this bird up. I'm right in the middle of that right now. a 2m version of this plane with some modifications to house a big 4s. I'm looking forward to the winter!

aeomaster32

The Mach 1 is a most beautiful design. I started it in 1976 and completed it in 2005. Four flights showed the old Rhomn Air retracts were not suitable for a grass field. My Mach 1 is now just a display piece, as I prefer flying my Aeromaster which is more rugged. I had my 1970 OS 60 H's in both machines.

skyz

[quote]ORIGINAL: dbodenheimer

Jeff, My memory is pretty dim, but as I recall, the plane rolled very slightly opposite the applied rudder.

Same with my memory, until I found this old picture from the mid/late 70's.
Please remember, this ship was set up for the "Novice Pattern" of the day.
I had the center of gravity mid/forward.
Look close to see the elevator trim...
The darn thing worked the pattern better set up this way.
It did require more "down input" during the 3 horizontal rolls and the stall turn.
But it did seem to uncouple the rudder.
Remember, there were no computer radios to "mix it out".

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

[quote]ORIGINAL: skyz


----------------


To me, the Mach 1 always looked as though someone put the wrong wing on it. The fuselage is beautiful, but the Kaos-like, triple tapered wing just looked out of place. A Dirty Birdy wing with the swept leading edge and straight trailing edge would have looked and flown better, IMHO.


Ed Cregger

Trisquire

I kind of like that basic, main-spar-in-a-straight-line look. The Mach 1 appeals to me for another reason. The engine is upright, and the forward fuselage is such that you could potentially get the fuel tank up high enough to be in line with the carburetor

Tom

choppercopper

My Feedback: (1)

Mine is almost finished.

Cheers to all the Mach 1 lovers out there!

Roger.

Melbourne Australia.

jim52519

My Feedback: (3)

Roger,
Great looking Mach-1! Is it painted? What engine are you using?


Jim

roncoleman

My Feedback: (14)

Great looking plane. It's still one of the best looking
pattern planes of all time for me.[sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif]

Ron

choppercopper

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks guys. It's painted in Norm Page's original colours as a tribite to that great pattern poineer. If you ever read his MAN articles you could see that he had a wonderful undertanding of model aerodynamics. He is one guy I would have loved to have flown with. The paint is automotive acrylic and has taken me 3 weeks just to paint with a LOT of hand rubbing and clear coating. Worth it in the end. It came up so nice I'm not sure I will ever fly it. Then again? It's powered by an OS .91. Power should be fine.

Cheers Rog.

Showtime 4D

I just ordered plans for the Mach I. What kind of construction am I looking at and about how long did yours take to complete? It should be a great airplane. I read that Norm won many contests with that bird. I am trying to have it ready for competition in May. Will power with a Thunder Tiger 91 FS. Anybody with Mach I flying experience to comment on the flying characteristics?

Showtime 4D

choppercopper

My Feedback: (1)

Ok....I hope you like carving big blocks of balsa...cause there is plenty of that. The fuel tank area is tight! I made a custom tank from thin gauge brass sheet, and soldered it up to take benefit of every mm of space. You will need to do that unless you want a very short flight time. The project took me about 2 years on and off....there are lots of mods you have to do to the original design ie: 2 servos in the wing instead of one, air retract systems that have to be modified to fit the nose area available, F2 (firewall) former area needs to the strenthened to handle the .91..also putting a .91 in the front gives you ground clearance problems so I had to lengthen all the undercarriage legs so that the prop wouldnt hit the ground.. this is a problem because the retracted nosewheel area is only just long enough for the standard mechanical retract gear ...the list goes on and on. It is a complex project.

Flying this aircraft is not for the beginner either. With a .91 they are FAST. If the wing is not dead straight they have a tendancy to tip stall as the speed washes off so build your wing dead straight. They look great in the air and will fly like they are on rails if you make sure everything is straight. I cant stress this enough with the .91 powered Mach 1. Bare in mind this airframe was never intended to have that much power so every alignment mistake will be amplified at higher speed and result in a very unforgiving airplane.

Take your time and enjoy the project.

Cheers Rog.

Showtime 4D

Thanks Choppercopper for the detailed info! It sounds like getting the Mach 1 into competition by May is not realistic. I am still going to build it because I think that in the long run it will be one awesome competitor in SPA events. I have read about some coupling issues with the airplane. Do you have any observations from your flying thus far? What do you see as other negatives regarding the flying of this design?

Showtime 4D

choppercopper

My Feedback: (1)

You will have to talk to others about the Mach 1 for SPA. We don't have SPA here in Australia so it is a sport model for me. Think seriously about fixed gear if you want to get this thing flying in a short space of time. I had a fixed gear one and it looked and flew fine , and was light. I have even seen a tail dragger version that looked ok. There is more building in a Mach 1 than many other designs, ie: Daddy rabbit, kaos, kwik fli 2, and this may be why many SPA guys steer clear of the design. It is not cheap to build either as there is lots of block wood. They fly great if you build light and straight. It will do the SPA pattern easily. I don't think however that the .91 will be legal for SPA. You will have to check. I just finished mine today so here are some new pics.

Showtime 4D

What a beautiful job! You can very proud of that bird. Hope it flies a good as it looks. SPA allows .91 size engines, but retractable gear is illegal! FYI SPA recognizes over 100 designs from the 60's and mid-70's as legal for their competitions. The Mach 1 has to be one of the most beautiful of those 100. Thanks for your comments and best of luck flying your awesome machine.

Showtime 4D

McLeodAviation

My Feedback: (70)

Super sharp Mach 1! I love the original paint scheme!

I am preparing to begin construction on my Midwest Mach 1 kit. Everything is in good shape except the canopy. I tried Midwest Products but a replacement canopy is no longer available.

Anyone make a reproduction canopy for the Mach 1???

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

---------------


The only problems that I had with the Rhom gear on a grass field, and I did have some, was with the stock 5/32" wire landing gear legs. I drilled out the blocks and then ran 3/16" wire landing gear struts without a problem. Also, there was a technique of adding dowels with epoxy into the foam cores that spread out the load when compared to the stock configuration. I used the latter technique in all of my retract equipped models (Phoenix 8, Tiporare, Deception).

Bushings were easily replaced, if needed.


Ed Cregger

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

choppercopper, please give the details on your finishing. Even in the photos I can tell that it's a first rate finish job. I want to know more about what you used, etc.

Thanks, David

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

-----------------


Well, the stock wing sure isn't ugly and it must have flown well, that's for sure.

I like models with good relationships between fuel tank placement and engine position/placement. I had a Phoenix 8 that absolutely required the flyer to use a pumped/regulated engine, otherwise the fuel tank would drain itself through the carb when full.

Oh to have those old kits and engines again - one more time!

I have managed to obtain a YS .60 roundhead short-stroke engine. I could never locate one for purchase "back in the day" when I had the money handy. I presently have a new Rossi .61 AXE (latest generation). I'm thinking of using that with a Cline regulator, IF, I come upon another Phoenix 8.

Back to the Mach 1. I remember opening the kit for the first time. Lots and lots of carving to do. Fortunately for me, I enjoy carving and shaping balsawood. Unfortunately for me, I then had to relocate for a while because of work obligations. The Mach 1 kit was lost in the move.


Ed Cregger

aeomaster32

I hadn't thought of enlarging the wire thickness. That would help. However, I have a thing about ground handling, and like my machines to manage less than perfect surfaces. The wheels are a bit small in this regard. The axle to gear strut fixing is also a vulnerable area. What finally made me put it aside was the unreliability of maintaining air pressure. I bought this Rhom Air in 1975, and when I went to finish the plane 27 years later, the original tubing has perished. I cut open the wing and replaced it with new stuff, which I later realized wasn't holding a tight fit on the nipples. Air leaks had me wondering about the condition of the O rings as well. I didn't want to land with one gear up and one down. I had visions of a cartwheel.
Fixed gear is out of the question, since a clean line is what a Mach 1 is all about.
For the moment, I am quite happy to hang(er) her up and admire the beauty of her lines.

aeomaster32

As you can see from my pictures, I didn't use the canopy they supplied. I much prefered to carve my own as it was easy to blend into the flow lines. Have you considered this option?

McLeodAviation

My Feedback: (70)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aeomaster32

As you can see from my pictures, I didn't use the canopy they supplied. I much prefered to carve my own as it was easy to blend into the flow lines. Have you considered this option?


Yes, I am prepared to carve my canopy, I also like the painted canopy appearance.

choppercopper

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks guys. Some extra shots of the canopy and lines of the Mach 1. Carving the canopy was one of the best parts of this project. Easy to do...just cut a template from Norms original plans. It will take a night. I then glassed over it and rubbed it smooth. Came up better than the cheap plastic one that came with the Midwest kit (Which always cracked where it joined the fuzz.) As you can see I hollowed out the deck and canopy areas and placed the air gauge and valve there for the retract system. Looks ok and is functional. Was a bit of messing around with bracing and what not but it gave me more room inside, which with the air tank, is tight. 3 blade BOLLY prop arived today so that will give me more ground clearance.

Paint is automotive acrylic...lots of coats...lots of hand rubbing back. I still havent cut and polished it, so the finish will get better when I do. Happy to help anyone else who is starting this wonderful project. Only word of advice is "take your time!" It will be worth it.

Cheers Roger
Melbourne Australia.

blw

My Feedback: (3)

I have the single sheet plans and I want to build one. Are there other plans out there? I'm supposing this has a fiberglass fuselage. I would want to build mine up since this would be a scratch build. Any advice would be appreciated....

airbusdrvr

As with many planes, there may be variants, but my unfinished Mach 1 has a balsa fuselage. I got it from an older member of my club who was getting out of flying. Go here for a few pics; http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_47...tm.htm#4714529

choppercopper

My Feedback: (1)

It's a built up fuselage. Foam core wing.