Chris:

Thanks for the kind words, I have always enjoyed your comments. I really like your choice of the YAK 18PM because of the tricycle retractable gear. That selection virtually eliminates the dreaded nose over and, of course, the retracts offer another flight option. Selection of the subject that naturally lends itself to the current scoring system is often difficult at best. In my opinion, I see the natural selection to be retracts, twin engines, flaps and tricycle gear. For this reason, my next subject was going to be a North American AJ-1 Savage. I had just about completed the plans for the AJ-1, but I am setting them aside for a while to do the simpler approach that I have previously mentioned. I need to get better at the second half of the hobby - flying. Thanks again.

JHF

I would like to offer some comments on the philosophy of selecting a subject for a scale model. First I believe that any model, simple or complex, can be competitive and building something that turns you on (provides the motivation for a complex project) is the top priority.

Beyond that I have some preferences. I don't like tricycle gear because of the potential to lose flight points on take off and landing. Many prototypes have a long nose gear (F7F, P-38, Ta-154). Built to scale length this can cause a model to "wheel barrow" on takeoff. In this situation the main gear lifts off before the nose wheel and the model runs along with only the nose wheel on the ground. Really bad deal on a full-size airplane and something I believe a flight judge ought to severly downgrade. Charlie Bauer's Ta-154 does this as did Lynn Greene's P-38 several years ago. On landing the long strut can also cause a problem with the angle of attack required to hold it off. Again full-size airplanes land main gear first. Most of the tricycle gear models I have watched will snap the nose gear to the pavement immediately after the mains touch rather than allowing the pilot to gradually and softly lower the nose wheel. Again I think a score downgrade would  be appropriate. The AJ-1, IIRC, does not sit with the exagerated angle of attack that the F7F and P-38 do, so maybe not an issue. A tail dragger provides the option of a two or three-point landing as fits the conditions. Many of the tricycle gear models I have seen just shorten the nose gear and ought to be downgraded in static.

Twins face an inherent weight penalty vs a single. I have built three for C/L competition, an XF-5-F and dH Hornet for profile and a Henschel 129 for FAI. The Skyrocket was somewhat successful, but mostly a learning experience as my first C/L scale model. Only real negative aspect was the thin scale airfoil. The others were reasonably successful. The Hornet was motivated by "love," the Henschel by practicality. Consider wing area vs total volume of fuselage and nacelles to try to keep the wing loading reasonable (1930's bombers good; post WWII cargo planes bad). The Henschel has simple geometry in the retracting gear. There is only one gear cover door and it does not sequence like the doors on a B-25. It has simple slotted flaps, one per wing. No complex fowler flaps. It carried bombs externally, no need for bomb bay doors.

In general I try to stay away from narrow landing gear--WWI or many bipes. They really tend to cause a C/L model to tip up on the left wing during ground handling maneuvers. That ought to cost flight points deduction.

I like my models big, big really does fly better. My better models are in the 700 to 800 square inch wing area range.

Chuck

Thanks guys for your comments, all interesting.

Chris: The AJ-1 holds a special interest for me. My parents bought me a Berkeley kit of one in the early 50's and it made a nice little scale model. I wanted to do a more legitimate rendition of the subject in their memory. I know what you mean about building light. Three years ago I built a Luscombe Phantom way too light (4 pounds on 660 square inches). In the first test flight, a slight Lake Michigan breeze vaulted the the model four feet into the air before I had any appreciable forward speed. It scared me so much that I set it back down immediately, causing landing gear damage. This one I will repair. I will have to cut back into the airplane to install a more substantial landing gear.

Chuck: I have seen what you are referring to in Charlie's Ta 154 and Lynn's P 38. Sometimes this can be helped by telescoping landing gear struts. It is interesting how you and I differ about tricycle gear as opposed to tail draggers. I believe that I have seen more nose overs with a tail dragger than I have seen issues with nose wheels. I believe that the best demonstration with either approach will because the pilot has practiced enough. This is where I have failed. I lost my flying buddy some time ago and it has been a good fifteen years since I have been able to get in any flying. Fortunately, electrics may change that.

Fred: I have already started with my design of my next,simpler model. It is going to be of the first rendition of the Rearwin Speedster with the Cirrus engine. All subsequent Speedsters used Menasco engines, so this subject will be very unique. The model will be totally adjustable (CG, leadout position and angle of attack), so I hope to get it to fly so that I am not afraid of it. It will be about 600 sq. in., and I am hoping for 5 to 6 pounds. I was planning to make it to FCM this year, but the Beech demise makes that impractical. The Beech could be repaired, but I hate fixing airplanes. Besides, after repairing it I still would have a less than ideal flying airplane. I would rather pursue a better flying model so that I can get some practice in. This is one of the reasons that I set the AJ-1 aside. On paper, it looked very similar to the Beech that did not succeed.

Jim Fruit

Luscombe Phanton, Rearwin Speedster, man I'm lovin' that stuff.
Chris...