MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
09-30-2009, 11:44 AM
#76
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stamford, CT
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Hi Andy
Well, it turns out I screwed up- the wingspan of Tweety is 48", not 42". So it's a bit more airplane. In terms of the weight though- have you ever seen the wood in a GP kit? I replaced the oak plank that was included for the stab with a built up version, but even so, it's not the lightest construction. But it does come up with a nice stiff airframe that can take some knocks. The all up weight is 52 oz and that's carrying 14 oz of lipoly.
I'll be the first to admit that Tweety might be a touch overpowered. But since I deleted the landing gear on the airplane, I wanted to make sure it'd be easy for a flying buddy to chuck. It is- it pretty much yanks out of somebody's hands. Back in the day when I had things like an HB .25 powered HOB AT-6 or a Super Pacer, handchucking either of those airplanes would have seemed a bit scarier. I'm looking forward to one of Don's airplanes- handchucking should be a bit easier with a smaller airplane.
Sam
Well, it turns out I screwed up- the wingspan of Tweety is 48", not 42". So it's a bit more airplane. In terms of the weight though- have you ever seen the wood in a GP kit? I replaced the oak plank that was included for the stab with a built up version, but even so, it's not the lightest construction. But it does come up with a nice stiff airframe that can take some knocks. The all up weight is 52 oz and that's carrying 14 oz of lipoly.
I'll be the first to admit that Tweety might be a touch overpowered. But since I deleted the landing gear on the airplane, I wanted to make sure it'd be easy for a flying buddy to chuck. It is- it pretty much yanks out of somebody's hands. Back in the day when I had things like an HB .25 powered HOB AT-6 or a Super Pacer, handchucking either of those airplanes would have seemed a bit scarier. I'm looking forward to one of Don's airplanes- handchucking should be a bit easier with a smaller airplane.
Sam
09-30-2009, 01:27 PM
#77
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
I haven't built a GP kit in a while, usually just from scratch or plans. For a 48" plane 48oz probably is not too bad.
I'm looking forward to a Mach-something myself.
Andy
I'm looking forward to a Mach-something myself.
Andy
10-01-2009, 10:15 AM
#78
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Nice evolution of this thread and definitely rich in all kinds of useful history, experience and cool mini-pattern models!
Although I haven't fully read all the preceding posts from the last 2-3 days, I'd like to make a comment about my view of these reduced scale models. To some extent it seems that we've been discussing these models as being 1/2A and at the same time we've been talking about 40"+ and/or 65% scale models. As far as I'm concerned these two concepts are apples and oranges. On the one hand we have the true 1/2A model (Speed 400/TD .05) at ~36-40" span, max of 22 oz (I wouldn't want it heavier) and the more appropriate scaling factor of roughly 60%. On the other we have .10-15 (~250W) models at ~40-43" span, max of 32 oz and a scaling factor which approaches 65%. These two model classes strike me as quite different in terms of weight, wing loading and power requirements.
While some models designed for TD's such as the Mach None and the Pacer had longer spans (~42 in), they also had rather narrow wings (the former probably not very true to scale) and were meant to build to a target of 20-22 oz. This was achieved - by design - via unsheeted foam wings, a simple fuse and the use of only 2 servos. In contrast, a 42" Tiporare, a 43" UFO and most certainly a 40" Deception built and equipped as a reduced scale version of the full size will be considerably different. They are ~65% scale versions, have more wing area, airfoiled empennage, will weigh closer to 30 oz (28-32 oz) and in principle might be equipped with up to 7 servos (using smaller 9 g servos) and trike retracts. In other words, while the difference in power requirements and loading capabilities of a 60 size model doesn't change much if we change the span by an inch or two, that same inch or two has considerable difference at these smaller 60-65% scales. This has much to do with the fact that as one scales up or down, the wing area (and hence loading) is changing with the square of the scale rather than linearly.
In short, reduced scale pattern models at 22 oz and at 32 oz AUW are not quite the same just like a TD .05 is not the same as a .09, or a 150W is not the same as a 250W motor. Putting 250W (whether glow or electric) on a 22 oz model is what I'd call overpowering. Putting 150W on a 32 oz model is what I'd call underpowering.
So..., if Don has plans to kit models that are ~65% of the 60 size brethren and able to carry 250W (1/3 hp) power plants at loadings of up to 17 oz/sq ft (270 wing squares), then I think we probably shouldn't think of these as 1/2A models. 1/2A models would carry 150W power plants at loadings of up to 14 oz/sq ft and 230 squares. Personally, I'm all in favor of Don's larger scaling approach as I quite like the additional capability and flexibility in terms of control surfaces, throttle and retracts.
But enough of this technical dissection!
David.
Although I haven't fully read all the preceding posts from the last 2-3 days, I'd like to make a comment about my view of these reduced scale models. To some extent it seems that we've been discussing these models as being 1/2A and at the same time we've been talking about 40"+ and/or 65% scale models. As far as I'm concerned these two concepts are apples and oranges. On the one hand we have the true 1/2A model (Speed 400/TD .05) at ~36-40" span, max of 22 oz (I wouldn't want it heavier) and the more appropriate scaling factor of roughly 60%. On the other we have .10-15 (~250W) models at ~40-43" span, max of 32 oz and a scaling factor which approaches 65%. These two model classes strike me as quite different in terms of weight, wing loading and power requirements.
While some models designed for TD's such as the Mach None and the Pacer had longer spans (~42 in), they also had rather narrow wings (the former probably not very true to scale) and were meant to build to a target of 20-22 oz. This was achieved - by design - via unsheeted foam wings, a simple fuse and the use of only 2 servos. In contrast, a 42" Tiporare, a 43" UFO and most certainly a 40" Deception built and equipped as a reduced scale version of the full size will be considerably different. They are ~65% scale versions, have more wing area, airfoiled empennage, will weigh closer to 30 oz (28-32 oz) and in principle might be equipped with up to 7 servos (using smaller 9 g servos) and trike retracts. In other words, while the difference in power requirements and loading capabilities of a 60 size model doesn't change much if we change the span by an inch or two, that same inch or two has considerable difference at these smaller 60-65% scales. This has much to do with the fact that as one scales up or down, the wing area (and hence loading) is changing with the square of the scale rather than linearly.
In short, reduced scale pattern models at 22 oz and at 32 oz AUW are not quite the same just like a TD .05 is not the same as a .09, or a 150W is not the same as a 250W motor. Putting 250W (whether glow or electric) on a 22 oz model is what I'd call overpowering. Putting 150W on a 32 oz model is what I'd call underpowering.
So..., if Don has plans to kit models that are ~65% of the 60 size brethren and able to carry 250W (1/3 hp) power plants at loadings of up to 17 oz/sq ft (270 wing squares), then I think we probably shouldn't think of these as 1/2A models. 1/2A models would carry 150W power plants at loadings of up to 14 oz/sq ft and 230 squares. Personally, I'm all in favor of Don's larger scaling approach as I quite like the additional capability and flexibility in terms of control surfaces, throttle and retracts.
But enough of this technical dissection!
David.
10-01-2009, 12:47 PM
#79
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eureka Springs,
AR
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
David,
Yep, they have evolved to that. which may have been in the back of my mind form the beginning. It is possible, considering the lighter radio gear, they could still come out at about 20-22oz, the widening doesn't really change the weight, just a hare more drag. Also, most will still be 40" or under, just a few of the bigger birds won't be able to be flown with the smaller engines. With careful building, and the 1/2A guys are used to that, some of them might still be usable as 1/2A.
All that said, I was originally going to .10 power, for my needs, so Iguess that is what they evolved to. A little bigger is fine also, if for no other reason than visibility. I really won't promote them as 1/2A, but a lot of guys will still try to make it happen.
I'm reall happy with the size range I am working with now, just need to get the kitting started. It does take a bit longer than expected to findthe minimum sheeting sizes, that still allow for the proper shape. That is my foremost concern now, to make them look just like the big sibleng, but small and light. Each one is getting easier. Going to have to re-do the Eyelash before Igo any further, it is too tight a fit for what I want to use. The baby TM and Banshee are about ready, so progress has begun. All the input has been appreciated,they have allowed me to produce what you guys are looking for, most based on real experience, the best kind.
Got kits and wings to produce the next couple of days, so CADwork will be the next couple of days. Hopefully will get a chance to finish a couple of them this weekend.
Thanks for all the input, can you say mini pattern contests??
Don
Yep, they have evolved to that. which may have been in the back of my mind form the beginning. It is possible, considering the lighter radio gear, they could still come out at about 20-22oz, the widening doesn't really change the weight, just a hare more drag. Also, most will still be 40" or under, just a few of the bigger birds won't be able to be flown with the smaller engines. With careful building, and the 1/2A guys are used to that, some of them might still be usable as 1/2A.
All that said, I was originally going to .10 power, for my needs, so Iguess that is what they evolved to. A little bigger is fine also, if for no other reason than visibility. I really won't promote them as 1/2A, but a lot of guys will still try to make it happen.
I'm reall happy with the size range I am working with now, just need to get the kitting started. It does take a bit longer than expected to findthe minimum sheeting sizes, that still allow for the proper shape. That is my foremost concern now, to make them look just like the big sibleng, but small and light. Each one is getting easier. Going to have to re-do the Eyelash before Igo any further, it is too tight a fit for what I want to use. The baby TM and Banshee are about ready, so progress has begun. All the input has been appreciated,they have allowed me to produce what you guys are looking for, most based on real experience, the best kind.
Got kits and wings to produce the next couple of days, so CADwork will be the next couple of days. Hopefully will get a chance to finish a couple of them this weekend.
Thanks for all the input, can you say mini pattern contests??
Don
10-01-2009, 08:33 PM
#80
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
ORIGINAL: dfturnock
David,
...
Thanks for all the input, can you say mini pattern contests??
Don
David,
...
Thanks for all the input, can you say mini pattern contests??
Don
this thread certainly is turning into a passionate exchange of useful information. It's nice to see how much effort modelers who like to build little planes have put into these pages. Notably absent is Rainedave's input and I'm eager to hear more about the progress on his little UFO. Like myself he's probably been a tad taken up with other things during the last month or two.
As soon as a breather opens up in my schedule I hope to continue progress on my little Tsunami. Should you go ahead with this design, perhaps we could exchange info on it. I plan to build it with retracts (mains only clearly) and a 43" span (40" effective).
In any case, when the kits start rolling off the conveyor belt there will be no stopping the mini pattern contests!
David.
10-10-2009, 09:21 AM
#81
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eureka Springs,
AR
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Well. I've got the first 3 kits about ready. Trying to decide what to put in the kits, trying to go as complete as possible on these small pattern planes, considering the market a lot of them might be going to.
What control rods are you all using for elevator and rudder, to keep these light? Seems like the choice is between simple music wire with a few braces inside the fuse, and the 2-56 Sullivan rods. The 2-56 size music wire seems good since it is a straight geometry from servo to control horns, if the servos are mounted on the fuse sides. A few braces keeps it rigid. Clevises on the surface end, and z-bends on the servo end. Are there choices I'm missing?
On the eyelash side of things, work is progressing, but no pictures. Experience on this has shown why I'm widening the fuses a bit...
Don
10-10-2009, 10:53 AM
#82
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Victorville, CA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Don I am kinda slow so correct me if I am out of step. Do you plan to market kits of these designs if so please sign me up? I have fond memories of the Mock None and Pacer. I also flew Ace's I/2 A war birds based on the same foam wing and loved ever minute.
10-10-2009, 04:12 PM
#84
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
What control rods are you all using for elevator and rudder, to keep these light? Seems like the choice is between simple music wire with a few braces inside the fuse, and the 2-56 Sullivan rods. ... Clevises on the surface end, and z-bends on the servo end. Are there choices I'm missing?
On smaller planes (lower load), I will use two separate pieces of piano wire which meet near one end (usually the servo end). Rough up the overlap area (about 2-3"). I use heat shrink to hold them together. You can adjust the length to make it exactly what you need - the heat shrink will hold well for trimming the plane. Once you get it trimmed, thin CA dripped into the heat shrink will lock the thing together very nicely.
Andy
10-10-2009, 04:26 PM
#85
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eureka Springs,
AR
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Andy, that is pretty much what I was figuring on using. I've never had a few bad experience with EZ connectors, but I've seen a lot of them. Just have to be careful and make sure they are tight.
Using ez-connectors and a z bend would save a little weight, and threads aren't needed, as with aclevis. Definitely a plus.
They are getting closer. Sourcing hardware now.............
Don
Using ez-connectors and a z bend would save a little weight, and threads aren't needed, as with aclevis. Definitely a plus.
They are getting closer. Sourcing hardware now.............
Don
10-11-2009, 04:30 PM
#86
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
I just put the Flying Saucer back together this afternoon (reinstalled servos, motor, ESC). On it I used piano wire at each end, attached with heatshrink. The pushrods themselves are 3/32" CF rod.
Andy
Andy
10-19-2009, 02:52 PM
#87
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eureka Springs,
AR
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Still here, just busy. the TM and Banshee should be ready real soon. While doing manual found a few things that have to change form original design. Doing 4 different ones at once, to make sure the basic construction I'm using works for various shaped fuses. A few wIngs are cut and ready for the TM and Banshee.
Don
Here is a partially finished Baby TM to wet your appetites. Sure looks like a TM, for sure. Only difference is the Baby TM doesn't have the block to shape into a canopy. It just goes straight to the nose. Tat is about as much deviation from the bigger brother I will accept. Can't wait to get them ready, but am still busy cutting kits and making wings. Have to fit the new stuff in during that.
10-29-2009, 01:55 PM
#89
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arlington,
WA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Just a quick note to Don after talking to him this morning. I built a 1/2a Mach 1 years ago when the Ace Mach None was popular just because the Ace design was so ugly. If you found the full size pattern plane,be it a mach 1 or other design, why would you settle for a semi-scaled version? I am really pleased to learn that you are not compromsing on the look of your mini-pattern kits and that they will be in proportion to the original aircraft. Given that I will enjoy obtaining one of each mini-pattern plane you have. Personaly I will prefer the Tiporare/Curare and Mach 1 ships but the others are very appealing as well. A real stylish one would be a mini Phoenix in Dave Brown's paint scheme. I have a Jim Kirkland Nutcracker which I will make a small version of unless Don wants to have one of those as well and thereby get my business for that bird also.
12-16-2009, 10:09 PM
#90
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
ORIGINAL: Megowcoupe
A Meridian scaled down to a 30'' wingspan all balsa, symmetrical airfoil, flat plate stab- weighs in at a smidge over 13 oz, and a FunX-E, (scaled down Phoenix 6)- glass fuse foam core wing, 40'' wing semi symmetrical airfoil, flat plate stab- 26 oz. Both of these airplanes have been flown a lot. You can't fly the FunX-E all that slowly- it'll just mush out if you're close to the stall. The Meridian with it's lighter wing loading can be flown more slowly, but still nothing as slow as the turnaround pattern aircraft.
A Meridian scaled down to a 30'' wingspan all balsa, symmetrical airfoil, flat plate stab- weighs in at a smidge over 13 oz, and a FunX-E, (scaled down Phoenix 6)- glass fuse foam core wing, 40'' wing semi symmetrical airfoil, flat plate stab- 26 oz. Both of these airplanes have been flown a lot. You can't fly the FunX-E all that slowly- it'll just mush out if you're close to the stall. The Meridian with it's lighter wing loading can be flown more slowly, but still nothing as slow as the turnaround pattern aircraft.
Got links for the Meridian and FunX?
Andy
12-16-2009, 10:26 PM
#91
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stamford, CT
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Hi Andy
No joy on the Meridian, it's been out of production for a few years and there were no plans with the kit. A somewhat similar airplane is the Jelly Bean and that's being kitted by Manzano Laser. (I think you know Charlie and Vickie.) There are also no links on the FunX-E- but if you call up John Fotiu (JM Glascraft), I'll bet he'd lay one up for you. If you need his number- shoot me an email at [email protected]
Cheers,
Sam
No joy on the Meridian, it's been out of production for a few years and there were no plans with the kit. A somewhat similar airplane is the Jelly Bean and that's being kitted by Manzano Laser. (I think you know Charlie and Vickie.) There are also no links on the FunX-E- but if you call up John Fotiu (JM Glascraft), I'll bet he'd lay one up for you. If you need his number- shoot me an email at [email protected]
Cheers,
Sam
12-17-2009, 12:57 PM
#93
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Thanks, Sam. Yes, Charlie sells the short kits for the Gulfstream I did for Flying Models. I hope he's making money on them!
Mark Rittinger mentioned the FunX to me last night. Sounds like a neat plane. I'm working on three 25-sized planes right now so I'm not ready to buy anything for a few months, I was just curious about photos. It hasn't been too easy to find them, seems like funx is a dating service too and Google Images gives pictures of daters instead.
Andy
Mark Rittinger mentioned the FunX to me last night. Sounds like a neat plane. I'm working on three 25-sized planes right now so I'm not ready to buy anything for a few months, I was just curious about photos. It hasn't been too easy to find them, seems like funx is a dating service too and Google Images gives pictures of daters instead.
Andy
12-17-2009, 01:04 PM
#94
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stamford, CT
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Hi Andy
Give me a week or so (I'm taking off tomw) and I should be able to post photos of my airplane although it's a bit beat up- it has had a lot of flights!
I was going to have to shoot Mark an email to get John's #, so it's good to hear that you're in touch with him as well.
In terms of .25 sized airplanes- there's an unconfirmed rumor that Aerocraft may have run off a few Tweety kits. That's an airplane that's hard to argue with in that size range.
Sam
Give me a week or so (I'm taking off tomw) and I should be able to post photos of my airplane although it's a bit beat up- it has had a lot of flights!
I was going to have to shoot Mark an email to get John's #, so it's good to hear that you're in touch with him as well.
In terms of .25 sized airplanes- there's an unconfirmed rumor that Aerocraft may have run off a few Tweety kits. That's an airplane that's hard to argue with in that size range.
Sam
12-17-2009, 01:55 PM
#96
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eureka Springs,
AR
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Hello,
I haven't given up on the small kits, just been real busy here Should be able to back to them after the first of the year...
Everybody here have a VERY Happy Holidays, and hope your stocking are full of goodies!!
Don
www.eurekaaircraft.com
I haven't given up on the small kits, just been real busy here
Should be able to back to them after the first of the year...Everybody here have a VERY Happy Holidays, and hope your stocking are full of goodies!!
Don
www.eurekaaircraft.com
12-17-2009, 02:09 PM
#97
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Sam,
I think you'll like what I'm working on. I need to get farther along before posting pix. I'm doing a three-off and that will be it.
Paul,
Got the PM. Thanks, e-mail addy sent.
Don,
It's always good to hear that a kit cutter is busy!!
Andy
I think you'll like what I'm working on. I need to get farther along before posting pix. I'm doing a three-off and that will be it.
Paul,
Got the PM. Thanks, e-mail addy sent.
Don,
It's always good to hear that a kit cutter is busy!!
Andy
12-17-2009, 11:16 PM
#98
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Gents,
as mentioned, if you want further info on the Fun-X, Cranks Phoenix 7 thread has more details (well, not much). The model's name is a play on words as can be appreciated and looks very much like a P6 I believe. John makes another pattern like classic called the Hummin' Bird. This latter I believe was inspired by the Dirty Birdy. Or perhaps, better said, on the Tweedy Bird. Actually, the Hummin' Bird also has a 48" span.
John's number at JMGlascraft is (586) 773-7069 and I'm sure his phone is ringing off the hook by now!
David.
as mentioned, if you want further info on the Fun-X, Cranks Phoenix 7 thread has more details (well, not much). The model's name is a play on words as can be appreciated and looks very much like a P6 I believe. John makes another pattern like classic called the Hummin' Bird. This latter I believe was inspired by the Dirty Birdy. Or perhaps, better said, on the Tweedy Bird. Actually, the Hummin' Bird also has a 48" span.
John's number at JMGlascraft is (586) 773-7069 and I'm sure his phone is ringing off the hook by now!
David.
12-17-2009, 11:55 PM
#99
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stamford, CT
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Hi David
Hmm, I've got a Hummin' Bird kit stashed someplace- pretty sure it's actually a scaled down Phoenix 5- my recollection is a swept wing. Definitely some differences from the Fun-X E. Could be another airplane entirely, but pretty sure it's not a Tweety. Also- it's quite a bit smaller than a Tweety, might be a 42" wingspan, but maybe not. But IIRC, the fuse is quite a bit smaller than a Tweety.
Also- I think John F. sold the rights to the Hummin' Bird a bunch of years ago, so I'm not sure he can lay up any kits.
Sam
Hmm, I've got a Hummin' Bird kit stashed someplace- pretty sure it's actually a scaled down Phoenix 5- my recollection is a swept wing. Definitely some differences from the Fun-X E. Could be another airplane entirely, but pretty sure it's not a Tweety. Also- it's quite a bit smaller than a Tweety, might be a 42" wingspan, but maybe not. But IIRC, the fuse is quite a bit smaller than a Tweety.
Also- I think John F. sold the rights to the Hummin' Bird a bunch of years ago, so I'm not sure he can lay up any kits.
Sam
12-18-2009, 02:50 PM
#100
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: MachNone, Eyelash, Pacer etc
Hi Sam,
thanks for the info. I just received a call from John and he confirmed that he indeed sold the mold for the Hummin' Bird which apparently won first place at KRC (some time ago). It is somewhere in N. Carolina he says. He also mentioned that it was a variation on the Fun-X primarily intended for a larger engine/motor of .15 size. So, yes, little relation to the TB. I just assumed because of the name (HB 15, TB 25, ...)
And speaking of Tweedy Bird's, thanks to Gino, I have one on the way! We'll have to do something about the cowl and canopy. The latter shouldn't be too tricky.
In other great news, my Fun-X fuse is laid up! John used to sheet the wings with Sorghum but since it is no longer available... they'll come un-sheeted. I'm going to look at it to see if retracts make any sense but I doubt it - I'll probably just build it as intended with some 300W of outrunner. Besides, I'm up to my ears with retract projects on the "to do" list.
Don,
we look forward to your kits coming together. Speaking of which, I'm mounting an electric motor to the FW of a Super Pacer at the moment. I'm partly scratching due to modifications (using 1/32" fuse sides for a starters). Hopefully she will be a lot lighter than the kit!
David.
thanks for the info. I just received a call from John and he confirmed that he indeed sold the mold for the Hummin' Bird which apparently won first place at KRC (some time ago). It is somewhere in N. Carolina he says. He also mentioned that it was a variation on the Fun-X primarily intended for a larger engine/motor of .15 size. So, yes, little relation to the TB. I just assumed because of the name (HB 15, TB 25, ...)
And speaking of Tweedy Bird's, thanks to Gino, I have one on the way! We'll have to do something about the cowl and canopy. The latter shouldn't be too tricky.
In other great news, my Fun-X fuse is laid up! John used to sheet the wings with Sorghum but since it is no longer available... they'll come un-sheeted. I'm going to look at it to see if retracts make any sense but I doubt it - I'll probably just build it as intended with some 300W of outrunner. Besides, I'm up to my ears with retract projects on the "to do" list.
Don,
we look forward to your kits coming together. Speaking of which, I'm mounting an electric motor to the FW of a Super Pacer at the moment. I'm partly scratching due to modifications (using 1/32" fuse sides for a starters). Hopefully she will be a lot lighter than the kit!
David.