| Build Thread, Page :
[ 1 ] 2 (24 posts, 20 posts per page, 2 pages in total)
|
[ Next > ] |
| Don C, Comment for image # 41685 | 31 Dec 19 10:29 |
| Good old McCoy "Redhead". Definitely from the '50's. That and Fox were the 2 big brands. I put a lot of fuel through them. They wee usually on a Ringmaster. My favorite was the Sterling Flying Fool. Also the last. It ended up in several pieces after I lost it to a gust of wind. |
| pfinn, Image # 41685 | 30 Dec 19 14:01 |
Don C. The "Clown" Racer. It has hence been painted to match original gray. The "McCoy .35" was temperamental (Old ;o) ) so I ended up with the Veco instead. But the McCoy looks better!! |
| pfinn, Comment for image # 24044 | 08 Nov 11 23:08 |
| Get's done twice as fast with two (and sometimes three) working on them as a team. It's nice. And fun too. Bottom Line! ;o) |
| frwyflyer, Comment for image # 24044 | 08 Nov 11 17:03 |
| I think your right about getting the short end of the deal. That is a lot of work. |
| Creosotewind, Comment for image # 24044 | 08 Nov 11 14:12 |
| If I remember right, these are about 1/100 scale.
|
| pfinn, Comment for image # 24044 | 08 Nov 11 10:09 |
| Thanks. These are resin models. Some assembly required. The turrets are held on with magnets so the gamers can rotate them during play. 5 sets of the tracks are cast in metal. These are about +- 1.5 inches long. We've got 5 Panzers, 4 Tigers, 1 king Tiger and various artillery as well as about 200 total tiny figures to do as well. |
| frwyflyer, Comment for image # 24044 | 08 Nov 11 09:19 |
| They look very nice and having fun is the bottom line |
| BriandKilby, Comment for image # 24044 | 08 Nov 11 08:55 |
| neat, what size are they? |
| pfinn, Image # 24044 | 07 Nov 11 23:59 |
Jimmy and I are putting together these "Gamers'" little kits for a friend. Jimmy bartered our labor for these and another "Axis" set. We sprayed a base green, airbrushed some darker fade. We are in the process of using the "Wash" technique to antique them. I do believe our friend got the better side of the deal, but we're having a lot of fun. |
| mleduc, Comment for image # 14470 | 12 Oct 09 14:27 |
| No Pfinn, I very much appreciate the detail. I have been building an Arrow in my mind for some time since I saw the Purple/Yellow one (Droid's I believe) and definitely see some similarities to this bird. I'm collecting parts and checking in at RC groups for info as I'm more or less waiting for a stable housing situation to get going on my project. Thanks very much for the run through. Since I'm a novice at flying I very much appreciate your advice on the horizontal stabilizer factor. ML |
| pfinn, Comment for image # 14470 | 12 Oct 09 00:47 |
| mleduc, This is a repro kit of a 1949 comp. design. Awsome kit by the way. As far as CG, there's a long story on that one on a previous post in this build. With a lifting stab like this and your Arrow (I know that model because my son, jfinn, is slowly but surely building one here, see his hanger) the flight characteristics change quite dramatically with change in airspeed. The faster the plane travels, the more lift the stabilzer creates and hence more nose down pitching. As a freeflight, and this goes with most "Lifting Stab" equipped models of this sort, the CG is way back. See the white mark on the wing saddle (the one very close to the wing)? That's more or less it on this airplane. It was designed to ascend rapidly under power at a high angle of attack at high speed, engine quits and then transitions into a very slow floating glide. The model is actually using the the stabilizer as a lifting surface so the CG is moved rearward in relation to the main wing because the "Center of Lift" has been shifted rearward by the lifting stab. The CG and CoL relationship directly contributes to stability. Could go on, but I won't (phew!).
As an RC, the Lifting Stab makes for a... unique...flying experience. Lots of varialbes to contend with during flight. Personally, I like it, keeps you on your toes. For a more conventional flight characteristics I would definately go for a "Plank" non-aifoiled built-up style horz. stab., put the CG at 25-30% and go from there. That's what Jimmy is going to do with his although he did build the stock stab too. "Droid", here at VA also RCed an Arrow. He has some good insights as well pertaining to the Arrow in particular. The prop in this picture was totally wrong. Too much tourque ("P" factor).Currently using a 6-4 Master Airscrew. Very small rudder movement is needed with a poly wing. I've got only 1/4" throw either way. In a glide it's almost not enough, under power, it's almost too much. Elevator throw is 1/2" up and down and not as sensitive. Right now I'm also deciding if I prefer the way it flys with either three pennies of nose weight or five. My friend flew the Geef after the video and said that this is the type of plane you might need to change your shorts after flying. He just wasn't used to it! Hope this helps and sorry every body for the "Longwindedness". Phil
|
| mleduc, Comment for image # 14470 | 11 Oct 09 20:56 |
| Awesome flight! I don't know if that was your first one or not. I assume you are playing with the CG at this point. That battery pack may have to move a hair :-) . This ship reminds almost exactly (or sort of) of a free flight plane I saw in an old family friend's book, except it had a saucer airfoil on top, like the Vought "Pancake" I guess. Same sort of attitude. In any event, congrats. Hoping you might be willing post your setup and your opinions on whether it would you think it would work for a Guillow's Arrow. (long shot :-) ) |
| pfinn, Image # 14470 | 11 Oct 09 20:33 |
The GEEF! It's ALIVE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvRZGOgvt_c |
| pfinn, Comment for image # 11004 | 27 Feb 09 01:10 |
| 8 in.cord. Plans had CG indicated at 1.75 in. from the "trailing" edge forward. Wierd I thought. After the excitement, I did some "Book learnin'". Obvious and smart reasons why. Center of Lift, Center of Gravity, coupled with launch and flight criteria equal and absolutely ingenious solution with infinite variables to throw into their designs. The Free-Flight guys have my total admiration. Seriously tricky tuning. |
| SteveM, Comment for image # 11004 | 26 Feb 09 21:33 |
| What's that saying? Something about you only fly a tail heavy plane once. At least it was nose heavy. |
| pfinn, Comment for image # 11004 | 26 Feb 09 20:52 |
| THE BOMB. Here we go. I "Thought" it needed a ton of nose weight. The CG on the plan couldn't possibly be correct! No way. So I say "Hey Jimmy, how'a'bouts we put a bomb on your new plane (...and fill it up with lead to get the CG to where "I" know it should be). Well I had about eight servings of "Humble Pie" that day. Wish I had that first flight on tape. Hilarious. No,the bomb doesn't drop. But I wish it did. |
| supercruiser, Comment for image # 11004 | 26 Feb 09 19:10 |
| Beautiful! I really like the old time designs.
Is the pod (bomb) whatzit droppable? |
| pfinn, Comment for image # 11004 | 26 Feb 09 18:03 |
| Sheesh! |
| David Duckett, Comment for image # 11004 | 26 Feb 09 17:57 |
| Embarrassing. ;-) |
| pfinn, Comment for image # 11004 | 26 Feb 09 17:09 |
| Thanks. Sorry for my lousy grammar on that one. Embarrasing. |
| Build Thread, Page :
[ 1 ] 2 (24 posts, 20 posts per page, 2 pages in total)
|
[ Next > ] |
