Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. October 30, 2014, 09:07:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
 on: Today at 06:13:38 AM 
Started by Steve Wilk - Last post by GregArdill
As a point of interest, that distance sign Mat posted is about half way between Sydney & Perth.

But luckily they now let aircraft actually land in WA so you can get connecting flights from Syd to Per. about a 5 hour flight.

 on: Today at 04:56:35 AM 
Started by Randy Cuberly - Last post by Fred Cronenwett
Here is a link to Kitcutters for the same B-25


 on: Today at 04:19:10 AM 
Started by Russell Bond - Last post by Russell Bond
Yeah Howie, you and your "bling"!!!!!!!! hahaha
I was blinded by it at the World's, is it designed to blind the judges so you get a better score??? Hahahaha.  Stir the pot

Seriously, I modified my older Bandolero the other day by removing 1/2 oz of nose weight, moving the battery forward to right behind the motor and fitting a lighter motor to balance the model in exactly the same place as before and now it turns snappier in squares than it did before........................

Gee, did I answer my own question?HuhHuhHuh 

 on: Today at 03:48:15 AM 
Started by Steve Wilk - Last post by qaz049
My bad but thanks for the geography lesson. Perth it is.  That what get for typing in the car

By the way we drive on the left :-)

 on: Today at 03:43:42 AM 
Started by Russell Bond - Last post by Igor Burger
and may be one hint more ... aerodynamics is also physics  Evil

 on: Today at 03:35:51 AM 
Started by Steve Fitton - Last post by Mike Greb
They already had two catastrophic failures on the test stand.  I had a feeling that this was going to happen sooner or later.

 on: Today at 03:26:46 AM 
Started by Russell Bond - Last post by Howard Rush
Shorter nose, but not so short that you need to add ballast.  It's not obvious.  Here's a calculator, at post 20, I think:,30303.msg300702.html#msg300702 .

You also want to allow for lights and other bling in the nose.

 on: Today at 01:21:47 AM 
Started by Mike Griffin - Last post by pipemakermike
I have built and competed with 2 mobests.  Both are shown in the pictures at the top of this thread.  The top one is the first that I started from the pampa plans and completed using the first CAD plans that Larry had started.  The second one was built entirely from Larry's version of the CAD plans.  I had the ribs laser cut from larry's DXF file and have so far built 2 wings from them.  I also started a Mo-Beast but this stalled when Larry's health started failing.  I do plan to complete it and it is sad that the Brodak promise wasn't carried through.
I built my wings on a jig and they turned out well.

 on: Today at 12:59:28 AM 
Started by Russell Bond - Last post by Russell Bond
Here's a question for the physics experts in regard to nose lengths. (Model nose!!!) Grin

You have a plane with the tail moment and design which works well for you.
Are you better off having a shorter nose with the battery right up close to the motor or is it better to have a bit longer nose with the battery further back closer to the balance point?
Of course keeping the balance point the same on the model in both scenarios.
Which setup would be better to keep the corners snappy?
In other words, which one causes less inertia in the corners?

Unless there is no difference of course.  Huh

 on: Today at 12:05:16 AM 
Started by Mike Griffin - Last post by Geoff Goodworth
The project team was Bill Jacklin, Rob Compton, Mike Nelson in the UK and moi in Oz. We found a lot of material on Larry's computer including all the plans, component drawings and, yes Serge, Larry's highly detailed assembly manual.

Larry's drawings all featured a standard control system. He suggested to me on one occasion that while the Expo-crank worked, it was complex and so very dependent on manufacturing tolerances that each unit required careful hand fitting. If I remember correctly, he said that the tolerance issue made it not commercially viable. Again from memory, I think Larry had some laser cut in plastic—possibly acrylic. If he didn't cut some, he certainly talked about it. Some of the drawings show a conventional bellcrank tilted so that in elevation in the neutral position the bellcrank is at the same angle as the flap pushrod. There are even detailed ribs with the bellcrank support at the angle, but no notes of any value to those of us following behind. The angled bellcrank probably improves the linearity of the controls but by how much over hockey stick flap horns of the correct size for a particular model? I have no idea.

Larry was working on a full fuselage version that he called Mo'Beast and like Jim, it's my preference. There is not a lot of work left to be done to finish the plans for that version but like Mo'Best, it's a complex model and the interest level needs to be high to make it viable.

Working with the drawings, I saw a way to use the same flying surfaces for both models. The trick was to use flaps that fit the full fuselage version and supply fillets long enough to fill the extra space between the flaps and the profile fuselage. A simple straight cut would produce the shorter fillet for the full fuselage version. This would require only a change to the horns and the fuselage to produce both versions.

The only comment I will add to Mike's post is, 'Never say never.'

Given sufficient interest, anything is possible in time.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM