I just looked them up, I can see what you mean the shapes pretty much the same such a cool thing to send off for from your breakfast,shame they dont do that anymore.Did you get yours flying in the end?
That they are, you win some you loose some, tbh as sad as the fly off ones are its amazing to hear how far some get its a proper you did the job so well you made a satellite rather than a plane XD
@@scalestuff1066 I'm currently building the the same VMC kit, so your experience will be useful when I come to fly it. One question: where did you obtain the paper-tightening dope? My model shop told me that the old nitrocellulose dope is no longer available.
@@romanpolanski4928 I used,50 50 methalated spirts mixed with water out of a spray gun and a few light coats with hairspray to seal it.There is something called easy dope,I think that replaces the old dopes,hope that helps mate.I can go looking for a link to that if you like?
@@scalestuff1066 Many thanks for this! I hadn't thought of using hairspray to tighten the paper - how does it compare with the old dope|? I tried the easydope product, and found it substantially inferior to nitrocellulose.
@@romanpolanski4928 Im not sure sorry I'v never used it ,I use the meth and water first then hairspray afterwards with both together seems to work well mean I take a few stills of my models for each video and they have all had this used on them for tightening.I think it works ok.Sorry I couldn't give any comparison between them
Edit July 28/2022: I see my mistake in the June 28 edit. The rudder does not force yaw into turn, except initially from straight flight. Once the turn is established, the fin experiences a force due to the yaw rate (this is called yaw damping) which yaws the model out of turn, not into turn. This yaw out-of-turn allows dihedral to create a rolling moment which balances the rolling moment from the faster outside wing. The turn settles at the radius at which equilibrium exists. The inside wing, being yawed ahead and at higher angle of attack/CL as a consequence, has a sort of built-in washin effect, since as the model speeds up and angle of attack/CL reduces, it will lose more induced drag than the other side wing, and so yaw forward more. But actual washin may be needed anyway. It similarly works because an increase in speed cuts its induced drag more than it cuts the induced drag of the lower angle of attack outboard wing. (The induced drag is proportional to CL squared so that if CL be higher, a slight reduction will reduce the drag more than if it were lower.) One needs to have some dihedral effect or the slight yaw out of turn created by washin as the model speeds up would not do much. Similarly for tailplane tilt. So without much experience (my Bird Dog has lots of dihedral and also dihedral effect due to high wing), I wonder whether washin and tilt could help prevent scale models of no or very low dihedral from spiral diving. I did receive a comment from the late Bob Meuser of the NFFS: “On models I suspect that the classical stability notions are swamped by the effects of differential wing warp. I could never make a scale model fly without dihedral, but lots of guys do by turning in the proper direction with respect to prop rotation, and washing in the inside wing.” He was a very kind gentleman who gave me a feeling of belonging. Perhaps what the right direction may be depends on how much torque and how the slipstream interacts with the particular layout. That could be complicated to analyze but it is fairly simple to test whether it goes better to the right or to the left, and if it refuses to work either way, perhaps try a left-handed prop in case the model has some subtle asymmetry in construction? Although I don’t understand how washin could help a model with no dihedral, or even rudder turn it, maybe for light wing loadings there is some fuselage side force that pinch hits. Just speculation. End of July 28 edit. June 28: need to add a correction to my post below. If one uses rudder/dihedral against washin, trying for a turn which will not tighten into a spiral dive, I forgot that the into-turn wing yaw, which the rudder forces, gives the outer panel more incidence and the inner, less. So there would be an adverse/proverse yaw due to this as well as from the washin one warped into the inner panel. Except the incidence difference due to yaw would not be distributed spanwise by a twist, it would be even. I have to go back to square one and admit I don't really know how it all works, although many modelers do successfully use this technique of using rudder against washin. Will share any solution found but at the moment the situation looks complicated. About washin/washout In a typical full size aircraft, such as a Bird Dog, to turn right from straight level flight (not inverted) the pilot would move the control stick to the right. This would lower the left aileron and raise the right aileron. That would give the left wing, in effect, higher incidence, and it would produce more lift, while the right wing would produce less. This would exert a moment which would bank the aircraft right wing down. That would direct the overall wing lift to the right a bit, pulling the airplane into a right turn. The left wing, due to its higher lift, would experience more induced drag, and the right wing, less. This would tend to yaw the aircraft out of the turn. The pilot uses right rudder to correct this for a “well-coordinated turn”. This “aileron adverse yaw” is particularly great for high aspect ratio sailplanes (see for example Derek Piggott’s book on soaring). Ailerons are sometimes designed to minimize the adverse yaw they create. It would be more or less the same for an r/c model which had both ailerons and rudder. How about for a rudder-only r/c ? The rudder yaws the model, so the leading dihedralled wing is put at effectively higher incidence, and the trailing wing at lower. This banks the model as with aileron control, and it turns. This depends on having enough dihedral to give the rudder sufficient authority to turn the model well. High wing models have some built-in dihedral effect due to the way the flow over the wing -to-fuselage junction changes with yaw angle. Low wings tend to need extra actual dihedral because the flow effect is the opposite to high wing. In f/f, one could use aileron tabs or wing warps to trim the model to turn. But there is a problem. If the model speeds up, the induced drag of the down aileron side reduces more than the induced drag of the other side. This increases the yaw into the turn (or reduces the yaw out of the turn), and that produces a rudder-only type rolling moment into the turn. That is, aileron turn tends to tighten as the speed goes up. This is not so pronounced for full scale because the dihedral is usually less than typical f/f model dihedral, so that the yaw produces less roll moment. For models the problem is so severe that often one finds ailerons set against the turn instead of into it, and rudder used for turning. That is, washin on the inside wing or washout on the outer wing is often used to prevent spiral diving. I have found that it does not always work, possibly because there is a Reynolds Number increase in effectiveness of a rudder as the speed goes up. But many modelers have had excellent results. Duration models often use a little bit of tailplane tilt for the same reason as washin, but perhaps it is unsightly on scale models. Another useful option is a small amount of clay on the wingtip, since the turn this produces is not sensitive to speed increase. These ideas cover many cases, but there are exceptions. I have a Micro-Dyne indoor condenser paper covered Ryan M-1 which confounds me by climbing in a right turn while banking slightly left. Maybe the side force on the fuselage due to yaw is what makes it turn. It may have an odd combination of warps and misalignments. Being so fragile I am afraid to tamper with it. In this post the effect of the rotating propeller slipstream has not been detailed. It is important but I don’t fully understand it, especially not for scale models. One thing that may be true is that depending on which part of the slipstream the fin is in, a left or right yaw moment may result. As well, the slipstream probably produces rolling moments on the wing, fuselage and tailplane. But then there is torque as well. I don’t think that the slipstream moments are at all guaranteed to balance exactly the torque effect. Hope this is interesting. I can’t guarantee this information but maybe it could give some ideas to try out.
No thank you for the information, its all helpful mate sorry for the late reply Iv been really busy with work and felt that I wanted to reply to your comment properly when my minds at least half switched on.It seems though with these models its almost a miracle that they fly when you get into the micro details of it all and think about whats going on When it comes with the speed the drag the trimmings not to mention the faults that these things pic up been built by human hands,and the differences even within the balsa wood.It all seems to be one giant balencing act between the known forces and the unknown.
@@scalestuff1066 Your Sopwith Camel, its last flight on the calm air video, could not be any better. Took you not too many flights to find the right trim. My dad once commented that he did not see what the point was in having models fly so high you could scarcely see them. For me, this is truest for scale models. Your flight was great, you could see the plane well, and observe it responding to gusts. Stayed in the field, yet was a long enough flight to be satisfying. Makes me want you to wind it up again. (EDIT:Scale contest rules usually give some points for duration. A chap at the winter indoor sessions commented that Spitfires were not intended to float at high lift coefficient for long duration, but rather excelled at speed. So he set his model up for fast flying. He found it needed downthrust and a ball bearing race for the prop shaft. I guess that r/c is ideal for scale since one can demonstrate manoeuvrability, take off and landings, flight at different speeds. I wonder how pilots find this compares to full scale. I think that the model reactions might be more rapid, requiring good reflexes, and there is no force feedback. Of course one is not inside.) (EDIT: My comment about small differences in wood causing important variation in flying characteristics is on the level of saying that not every violin is a Stradivarius. The other violins are still playable. At least this would be so for modestly powered rubber scale kits like VMC. Some examples of the same kit might be better than others. When the amount of rubber and winds are as per instructions. I think that most customers, kids included, would be capable of getting any of them built and trimmed out acceptably, especially if they have long grass and follow your methodical testing program of starting with low turns and incrementally increasing the power. But one needs to persevere, and not throw the thing in the garbage if the first flights are disappointing. Your videos illustrate this well. By contrast, thinking of a chuck glider, thrown at up to 80 mph, if one wing panel is built from less rigid balsa than the other, it would tend to twist nose down more than the other. That is because of the strong aerodynamic nose down pitching moment that cambered airfoils generate at low angle of attack and high speed. There are other types of distortion. I once built a “Eureka” power duration model from an Aeromodeler plan. I learned that with the powerful Enya .19 used, it could not tolerate going off-pattern. The wing folded in mid-air. It was alright so long as going almost straight up, but if speeding up in a less steep excursion from pattern, the wing was over-stressed. If I remember well, it was well enough built. So testing should have been by very small increments in motor run, confirming each time that the pattern was holding. Also at that time I did not understand the necessity of consistently launching at the same angles. I had better success later with the strong full geodetic I-beam wing of the “Vertigo”, until one day I flew in the rain and the tissue tension was reduced. Even dew can be a problem. One faces the dilemma that lots of dope protects against moisture but may warp the wing. Anyway, high speed may emphasize the differences due to balsa density and grain, due to tiny misalignments or other building asymmetries. They may sometimes be beneficial, others not. Even if not it may still be possible to trim the model. But the end result may be merely normal, not Stradivarian. Low speed may emphasize Reynolds Number effects, since, depending on the model size, one may be dipping in and out of the sub and super-critical RN ranges as flight speed changes. In a turn, the outside wing goes faster than the inside. It is possible that this could suddenly put the outside wing above the airfoil’s critical RN, or the inside below. Well, one could fight this with washin or tailplane tilt, but these will need at least a little dihedral if going to be effective, like rudder-only r/c. Maybe a turbulator thread on one side or the other would help. A particularly difficult thing is to get both sides of the chuck glider wing the same shape, with razor plane, modeling knife and sandpaper. Little variations in thickness, camber, high point are hard to avoid. I am told that it is not easy to get two prop blades identical. Since the boundary layer is so sensitive at low RN, small variations could in some cases cause significant differences in glide behaviour, and issues such as good transition and thermal hunting. One would still have a flyable glider despite bad luck in this, but other times, one unwittingly makes one that seems unable to do anything wrong. It is lost quickly if one doesn’t use a dethermalizer or confine oneself to dawn flying. Even sunset/early evening I have had a thermal flyaway. In any case, you have shown by test that the VMC models can be trimmed, without going to anything very sophisticated and beyond what could be expected of a beginner who possesses a calm, patient, methodical approach. And tall grass. I think that they are a bit larger than the Guillows. I suspect they also were well tested, and extra dihedral and tail area added for the non-display mode. I don’t know what the ecological situation may be with balsa. With Sitka spruce, very much has already been cut. I suspect that the much desired quality was found in “old growth” spruce, which are large trees, over 1000 years old. This old wood has a special quality which can’t be matched by replanted 200 year old trees, at least not for musical instruments. But the little remaining old growth is not just an economic resource ($30,000 per tree), the forest is also a unique ecosystem, with flora and fauna which can’t survive in new growth forests. I am content to stay with new grown spruce in order to spare the biological wealth and biodiversity of old growth forests. Maybe a fibre reinforced plastic could be developed that was as good for musical instruments as old growth Sitka spruce. Perhaps some combination of layup directions of carbon fibre, Kevlar and fibreglass, boron whiskers, and various resins? My aging ears are probably not good enough to detect the difference, even were they musically trained. They never had anything like perfect pitch and I can only play a tune by memorizing where to put my fingers, like paint by numbers. When young I always felt I had to have the latest and hottest engine, but now sadly realize that what I needed was just to learn how to fly well, before pouring on the coals.)
@@kenrobba5831 Man Piaba. Thank you very much! It occurred to me a few days ago that, gliding, washin works not only because of the differential induced drag yaw moment changing with speed, but possibly also because the washed-in panel may experience higher profile drag ,being near the stall, as can be seen in the graphs of low speed wind tunnel airfoil tests. And the lift curve rounds off up there. The effectiveness of these things would vary with the specific airfoil and with the model's RN. But maybe the drag part is analogous to the floating drag tab used by some free flight modelers in times long gone by. At high speed, as in f/f comp power climbs, many cambered airfoils have peculiar ccstcs near zero lift coeff. Negative stall. Washin would affect how the left and right panels are influenced, as well as by the spanwise varying delta alpha created by rolling (if the pattern is helical). It is way beyond me at this time to pull these ideas together into a recipe for stabilizing the climb pattern by using lateral reactions from the washin effect changing with speed as climb angle changes, and not forgetting that the wing twists at high speed and cambered airfoils can be touchy when forced to fly at low CL, affecting the torsion moment, and that feeding back to changing the alpha with which the moment varies. It is fairly simple if the model can be trimmed to fly straight in a 65 degree climb, and slipstream is arranged to cause the model to nose up if it goes faster, or nose down if it slows up. But to figure out what would stabilize a helical pattern and keep the roll in phase with the turn at varying angle of climb, oh dear, oh dear, i am dead beat and would have to shut up and fly, see what happens. I did notice that it was easy to get a Sleek Streek to fly in a right helix, but to the left, if disturbed, it would stall and hang on the prop, rotating with torque. The right helix was very tolerant of disturbances. On the other hand, a Taibi Starduster flies really well in a gentle left steep climbing turn.
Thank bud ill give it a go, waiting for the grass to regrow before doing the free flight, my awesome fields covered in horses now and not got the nice padded grass as a bump matt anymore
Thanks for the input next time we fly whenever that will be ill give that a go,I learnt that on the focke wulf I did later but never thought it was the issue with this at the time,Any tips on how to adjust in a prebuilt plane?
@@scalestuff1066 Basic rule of thumb is to build in a bit of down and right thrust during construction. When finished get the CG where it needs to be, usually at about 1/3 back from the leading edge. Then adjust glide with elevator trim until glide is satisfactory, and begin test flights with low power. Make additional thrust adjustment with shims if necessary. With correct adjustments and proper CG you probably won't need tabs on the wing unless you're dealing with warps. Not to confuse the issue, but low wingers like your Focke-Wulf are best flown to the left.
@@daveb7811 I know mate I have built over 30 of these planes,this however is my friend scotts first build so just wanted to know how to help him correct the stallling problem in an already built plane,the wings are free from warps,just needs work on the shims
This is my mates first build,the wing was a bit warped,if you pin the surfaces down while shrinking the tissue the sucess rate and ease of trim goes up.saying that though sometimes you just get a bad kit VMC are pretty decent kit wise,some of the old reproduction kits like the FROG kits fly well and are fairly easy to build.Just stick with upper wingers and Bi planes for the first kits war birds are a bugger to get flying.Hope that helps mate
The trim instructions for Clarence Mather's Stormovik might be of interest for low wing fighter models. freercplans.com/plan-stormovik-6990.htm He suggests flying it in left circles and the plan calls for 1/16" washin in the left wing (it is not clear where this is measured). It seems that just choosing the right direction of turn is not necessarily enough, some modeling type adjustments may also be needed. I don't understand why low wings are found to prefer left and high wings, right. I have no idea about how typical biplanes should be flown. Though duration power models seem somewhat comprehensible in this respect, scale is more of a mystery to me. Maybe I can learn something from my Guillow Bird Dog if the opportunity to fly it occurs again. It seemed fine the first day, but it was quite windy so that I was grateful for the long grass which made it possible to get through the initial trimming in one piece. A building inaccuracy gave the right wing a couple of degrees more incidence than the left and a fairly large right rudder tab was needed for a right turn which turned out to work well. Washin usually has the effect of straightening out the turn if the speed increases, thus preventing spiral dives. This also implies that using full scale style aileron deflections to produce turn can lead to spiralling. So one ends up in f/f using washin opposed to rudder (or fin angular setting). The washin is the opposite to the aileron which full scale or model r/c would use to turn.
I will check that out thank you very much Ah now that I can shed some light on that, its caused by the prop ,low wings prefer left as the prop pulls them that way and its easier to keep the left wing up than fight the turn (or viz versa its something like that.And for top wings as its above the plane its more stable and balanced and when going right it tends to counter the left wing going down on the turn Also with bi planes both wings have a different angle of attack so as one stalls the other produces more lift,the two wings add lift but the also increases drag,due to the to angles of attack the planes are more stable but slower flying If you watch my focke wulf trimming vide the first few flights are ok left but once the powers up it worked better right
@@scalestuff1066 Yup. Propulsion affects trim a lot. Even in full scale they have problems such as torque flipping aircraft off carrier decks when there is not enough airspeed for aerodynamics. I think that the Cessna in the Fly! flight simulator program pulls right or left as the throttle is opened.
@@scalestuff1066 I have never had a true model jet with compressor and turbine, though they are now available, but expensive, I believe. Scale used to use Jetex or ducted fan with a glow plug or diesel engine. Don't know whether rubber band ducted fan would be practical for scale. Maybe with gears? (EDIT: Electric might be great, no problem starting the motor.) Jetex I have used in duration models. It was a sad day when Jetex went out of business. Learned after that the smoke was not toxic. A Jetex engine is a pure rocket with no moving parts. As the fuel burns, the model balance can change if the engine is not at the cg. This is even used to advantage by some. Although there is no rotating slipstream, one can put a tab in the jet blast to help trim power phase independent of glide. This tab could be on the fin or tailplane. Not sure about deflecting the thrust with a tab near the engine exhaust. Don't know whether ducted fan models experience a lot of torque effect. The ducted fan rotating jet outflow does not usually strike the model the way that prop wash does. (EDIT: I forgot that the fan flow would rub on the inside of the duct. No idea whether this would balance the torque. Not having any practical experience with ducted fans my ideas are just speculative.) I think that turbojets might experience some gyroscopic effect from the rotating parts. Excuse my ignorance, I don't even know whether any torque exists from these engines.
OK.. im getting it now..fine model. detail enough for me! Youve found an ideal location there, i can think of a few round here that would suit. ive built a few statics but only flown kites. (which require short grass to avoid tangles)
with these fly them over the longest grass you can if you have not built them before make sure you dont break them before they get flying just take it all slow and you should be able to get a good model.Most require abit of clay to balance them before they with glide but the instructions cover all of that
@@scalestuff1066 Bad luck! Me too. I've had quite a few first flight losses and total crashes. But we get up and try again. Some models have given great joy and education.
At the start of your video, when your Bird Dog was not flying well to the left, you said that maybe it had a warp. Trying it with a left hand propeller might clarify whether a warp was responsible, or just the intrinsic behaviour of the design due to torque, slipstream, and gyroscopic effects. What their effects may be depends on the layout of the plane, the amount of power, advance ratio, weight, prop and rubber rotational momentum for gyro effect, lots of things. Many modellers find that their model only flies well to one side, which could be either right or left , depending on the design, even if there is no warp. Anyway, so much for assessing whether a behaviour is due to a warp or not. But this leads into another idea that might be useful. Maybe one might find that a model flew better with a left-handed propeller. Some hand launch gliders which I built flew exceptionally well as regards pattern, transition and glide dynamics, thermal keeping. Others did not, and no amount of trimming seemed able to give them the exceptional quality that by luck the others had. Maybe it is tiny misalignments, different wood stiffness in left and right wings, not perfectly symmetrical shaping of the wings, slight undetectable skew of wing mount on fuselage, or of polyhedral joints, etc., combinations. I really don’t know. Two modellers of world champs level told me that they were unable to get their spare to fly as well as the original. There was no apparent difference in the models, and these men were very good artisans, their models were of a high level of workmanship. One even built on glass, and went to the trouble of taking a rib out of the original wing to help get the spare the same. It sort of is similar to the Oliver engines factory hand fitting pistons to cylinders to find pairs that matched well. The differences between cylinders, or between pistons, were below measurable tolerances. But a human sliding the piston up the cylinder could feel the quality of fit, possibly analogous to how flying shows up the model differences, though too small to see. The chump on the ground being right-handed, a glider had to climb right. My left-handed throw was very weak. When I started flying catapult gliders, they could be climbed either left or right. With these gliders, I sometimes found that ones which were not very good to one side despite extensive trimming attempts, were quite good to the other, often very easily trimmed too, when to the opposite side they were a frustrating nuisance. Sooooo, if one had a left-handed prop, one might find that one’s Bird Dog did better with it. Naturally its preferred direction with respect to torque etc would be reversed. Once trimmed for that, maybe it would be found to fly better or worse than before. There are fine and subtle quirks, which in r/c one might not need to worry about, but which in free flight can be important. For instance, in f/f, which wing drops after a stall can be decisive in avoiding progressive stalling, but with r/c one can control that. I am not suggesting major efforts during construction to get the model perfectly symmetrical and aligned. It can’t be done. What I am talking about is too small to avoid. And some of the imperfections may actually be beneficial. I wish I could analyze and master these things, but I can’t. I just experiment. To repeat and sum up, what I am postulating is that if you went through the whole same trimming procedure and experiments, but with the opposite handed prop, the end result might be better, or worse. If worse one just returns to the original prop. With my gliders this fine tuning was sometimes well worth it, when catapulting made trying either side possible. That’s mainly what I meant to say. Hope it is understandable, even if wrong.
I'll certaintly give the left handed prop a go, its interesting you mention about the throws though as I am infact left handed and throwing right handed feels strange to me,unfortunately I'm unable to throw left handed saftly due to an injury to that shoulder Interesting points though that you bring up about the world champ builders the micro differences in wood grain and stiffness all things that for most people would be very hard to detect. See this plane is my mates,I built a bird dog model from VMC to and it flew reasonably well with out some of the wobbles and janks that this one had but other than this one been made of better tissue the planes would appear to be the same No thank you for taking the time to explain some of that it makes sense unfortunately its all theory until its been tried and tested but you have certainly given me a few extra strings to the bow so to speak,to try out in future trimming attempts.Iv had problems like those that you have mentioned before in the past with a few warbird planes some would only fly to the right others wouldn't seem to fly at all and some just flew without anything really been done to them But thank you again for taking the time to attempt to shine some light on what is going wrong here,this models been a tricky one,and sometimes all I get is a dislike and a snarky comment rather than some idea or theory of whats going wrong so I can attempt to fix the issue
@@scalestuff1066 Thanks a lot for your friendly reply. I had a bicycle accident a few years ago, shattering upper left femur, now titanium, thank goodness, but this has weakened my glider launches. My sympathies on your shoulder, I understand. Maybe you could get the right side competitive, but developing a throwing arm is said to be a painful process, which in youth we don't notice perhaps since determined to do it well. Many girls never bother. After youth it might be more difficult. Possibly there is research on it. Will let you know if I find out something. I will ponder what you have told me about flight test engineering at VMC, and maybe will be able to think of something useful to reply. May take a few days. I like the VMC kits, good selection, attractive, reasonable prices. From watching the videos it looks as if you make an effort to cover the problems which customers might encounter, checking that the model does not require an expert to succeed.
@@douglaswilson1005 Any time, better to engage and learn than disregard,you clearly know more on the topic than I do.Sorry to here about the crash,horrible things injuries they can really pull the rug from under you Yes that's true about the throwing arm,it kinda happens as a child with out much thought when it comes to all the throwing and catching games that you play as a kid. Well if you do just drop me a comment,I read and reply to everyone and its always nice to learn from people with a better Idea,free flight doesn't seem to really be my generations thing,think the older crowds grew up with these kits more before the internet and computer games took over. Thank you I just try and fly them and fix them from a beginners stand point,my actions may not always be correct but I think that they are often the first thing that beginners would try,been one myself
@@scalestuff1066 Yes. One of the hard things for teachers is that they have long since forgotten how hard it was to learn what they know, which makes it difficult for them to empathize with pupils having problems. You may be able to help customers better for this reason. In testing you validate the wing and tail incidence settings, and find the appropriate cg. I think that there are things like this laterally but it will take time for me to organize my thoughts on this. I don't know whether you are familiar with the Sal Taibi "Starduster" competition duration f/f kit. Its instructions tell one clearly that it is to be flown to the left. To the right, one is asking for a crash. But other designs will only tolerate right. I don't know much about how this goes for scale models. One of the commenters said that low wings may differ from high wings. I suppose that this might be something that you could test on each kit you check out.
Can you explain how and why you think that?Not been funny just this plane proper took the mic to trim for me and would be nice if this crops up in future to be able to spot that for myself,And you recon just a tad on the nose weight to sort that out?
That reminds me so much of my Weetabix Wonderplane all those years ago😍
I just looked them up, I can see what you mean the shapes pretty much the same such a cool thing to send off for from your breakfast,shame they dont do that anymore.Did you get yours flying in the end?
@@scalestuff1066 only skidding across the dining room table as I painted it in Humbrol enamels and it was well heavy🤷🏻
Ahhh now that will do it still a taxi run though
Such are the Mysteries of free flight !
Then there is the FLIGHT of fright - U get it trimmed out and it floats away to Valhalla!!!
That they are, you win some you loose some, tbh as sad as the fly off ones are its amazing to hear how far some get its a proper you did the job so well you made a satellite rather than a plane XD
Wow you got her trimmed in lovely!
thanks bud :)
@@scalestuff1066 I'm currently building the the same VMC kit, so your experience will be useful when I come to fly it. One question: where did you obtain the paper-tightening dope? My model shop told me that the old nitrocellulose dope is no longer available.
@@romanpolanski4928 I used,50 50 methalated spirts mixed with water out of a spray gun and a few light coats with hairspray to seal it.There is something called easy dope,I think that replaces the old dopes,hope that helps mate.I can go looking for a link to that if you like?
@@scalestuff1066 Many thanks for this! I hadn't thought of using hairspray to tighten the paper - how does it compare with the old dope|?
I tried the easydope product, and found it substantially inferior to nitrocellulose.
@@romanpolanski4928 Im not sure sorry I'v never used it ,I use the meth and water first then hairspray afterwards with both together seems to work well mean I take a few stills of my models for each video and they have all had this used on them for tightening.I think it works ok.Sorry I couldn't give any comparison between them
Edit July 28/2022: I see my mistake in the June 28 edit. The rudder does not force yaw into turn, except initially from straight flight. Once the turn is established, the fin experiences a force due to the yaw rate (this is called yaw damping) which yaws the model out of turn, not into turn. This yaw out-of-turn allows dihedral to create a rolling moment which balances the rolling moment from the faster outside wing. The turn settles at the radius at which equilibrium exists. The inside wing, being yawed ahead and at higher angle of attack/CL as a consequence, has a sort of built-in washin effect, since as the model speeds up and angle of attack/CL reduces, it will lose more induced drag than the other side wing, and so yaw forward more. But actual washin may be needed anyway. It similarly works because an increase in speed cuts its induced drag more than it cuts the induced drag of the lower angle of attack outboard wing. (The induced drag is proportional to CL squared so that if CL be higher, a slight reduction will reduce the drag more than if it were lower.) One needs to have some dihedral effect or the slight yaw out of turn created by washin as the model speeds up would not do much. Similarly for tailplane tilt. So without much experience (my Bird Dog has lots of dihedral and also dihedral effect due to high wing), I wonder whether washin and tilt could help prevent scale models of no or very low dihedral from spiral diving. I did receive a comment from the late Bob Meuser of the NFFS: “On models I suspect that the classical stability notions are swamped by the effects of differential wing warp. I could never make a scale model fly without dihedral, but lots of guys do by turning in the proper direction with respect to prop rotation, and washing in the inside wing.” He was a very kind gentleman who gave me a feeling of belonging. Perhaps what the right direction may be depends on how much torque and how the slipstream interacts with the particular layout. That could be complicated to analyze but it is fairly simple to test whether it goes better to the right or to the left, and if it refuses to work either way, perhaps try a left-handed prop in case the model has some subtle asymmetry in construction? Although I don’t understand how washin could help a model with no dihedral, or even rudder turn it, maybe for light wing loadings there is some fuselage side force that pinch hits. Just speculation.
End of July 28 edit.
June 28: need to add a correction to my post below.
If one uses rudder/dihedral against washin, trying for a turn which will not tighten into a spiral dive, I forgot that the into-turn wing yaw, which the rudder forces, gives the outer panel more incidence and the inner, less. So there would be an adverse/proverse yaw due to this as well as from the washin one warped into the inner panel. Except the incidence difference due to yaw would not be distributed spanwise by a twist, it would be even. I have to go back to square one and admit I don't really know how it all works, although many modelers do successfully use this technique of using rudder against washin. Will share any solution found but at the moment the situation looks complicated.
About washin/washout
In a typical full size aircraft, such as a Bird Dog, to turn right from straight level flight (not inverted) the pilot would move the control stick to the right. This would lower the left aileron and raise the right aileron. That would give the left wing, in effect, higher incidence, and it would produce more lift, while the right wing would produce less. This would exert a moment which would bank the aircraft right wing down. That would direct the overall wing lift to the right a bit, pulling the airplane into a right turn. The left wing, due to its higher lift, would experience more induced drag, and the right wing, less. This would tend to yaw the aircraft out of the turn. The pilot uses right rudder to correct this for a “well-coordinated turn”. This “aileron adverse yaw” is particularly great for high aspect ratio sailplanes (see for example Derek Piggott’s book on soaring). Ailerons are sometimes designed to minimize the adverse yaw they create.
It would be more or less the same for an r/c model which had both ailerons and rudder.
How about for a rudder-only r/c ? The rudder yaws the model, so the leading dihedralled wing is put at effectively higher incidence, and the trailing wing at lower. This banks the model as with aileron control, and it turns. This depends on having enough dihedral to give the rudder sufficient authority to turn the model well. High wing models have some built-in dihedral effect due to the way the flow over the wing -to-fuselage junction changes with yaw angle. Low wings tend to need extra actual dihedral because the flow effect is the opposite to high wing.
In f/f, one could use aileron tabs or wing warps to trim the model to turn. But there is a problem. If the model speeds up, the induced drag of the down aileron side reduces more than the induced drag of the other side. This increases the yaw into the turn (or reduces the yaw out of the turn), and that produces a rudder-only type rolling moment into the turn. That is, aileron turn tends to tighten as the speed goes up. This is not so pronounced for full scale because the dihedral is usually less than typical f/f model dihedral, so that the yaw produces less roll moment. For models the problem is so severe that often one finds ailerons set against the turn instead of into it, and rudder used for turning. That is, washin on the inside wing or washout on the outer wing is often used to prevent spiral diving.
I have found that it does not always work, possibly because there is a Reynolds Number increase in effectiveness of a rudder as the speed goes up. But many modelers have had excellent results.
Duration models often use a little bit of tailplane tilt for the same reason as washin, but perhaps it is unsightly on scale models. Another useful option is a small amount of clay on the wingtip, since the turn this produces is not sensitive to speed increase.
These ideas cover many cases, but there are exceptions. I have a Micro-Dyne indoor condenser paper covered Ryan M-1 which confounds me by climbing in a right turn while banking slightly left. Maybe the side force on the fuselage due to yaw is what makes it turn. It may have an odd combination of warps and misalignments. Being so fragile I am afraid to tamper with it.
In this post the effect of the rotating propeller slipstream has not been detailed. It is important but I don’t fully understand it, especially not for scale models. One thing that may be true is that depending on which part of the slipstream the fin is in, a left or right yaw moment may result. As well, the slipstream probably produces rolling moments on the wing, fuselage and tailplane. But then there is torque as well. I don’t think that the slipstream moments are at all guaranteed to balance exactly the torque effect.
Hope this is interesting. I can’t guarantee this information but maybe it could give some ideas to try out.
No thank you for the information, its all helpful mate sorry for the late reply Iv been really busy with work and felt that I wanted to reply to your comment properly when my minds at least half switched on.It seems though with these models its almost a miracle that they fly when you get into the micro details of it all and think about whats going on
When it comes with the speed the drag the trimmings not to mention the faults that these things pic up been built by human hands,and the differences even within the balsa wood.It all seems to be one giant balencing act between the known forces and the unknown.
@@scalestuff1066 Your Sopwith Camel, its last flight on the calm air video, could not be any better. Took you not too many flights to find the right trim. My dad once commented that he did not see what the point was in having models fly so high you could scarcely see them. For me, this is truest for scale models. Your flight was great, you could see the plane well, and observe it responding to gusts. Stayed in the field, yet was a long enough flight to be satisfying. Makes me want you to wind it up again. (EDIT:Scale contest rules usually give some points for duration. A chap at the winter indoor sessions commented that Spitfires were not intended to float at high lift coefficient for long duration, but rather excelled at speed. So he set his model up for fast flying. He found it needed downthrust and a ball bearing race for the prop shaft. I guess that r/c is ideal for scale since one can demonstrate manoeuvrability, take off and landings, flight at different speeds. I wonder how pilots find this compares to full scale. I think that the model reactions might be more rapid, requiring good reflexes, and there is no force feedback. Of course one is not inside.)
(EDIT: My comment about small differences in wood causing important variation in flying characteristics is on the level of saying that not every violin is a Stradivarius. The other violins are still playable. At least this would be so for modestly powered rubber scale kits like VMC. Some examples of the same kit might be better than others. When the amount of rubber and winds are as per instructions. I think that most customers, kids included, would be capable of getting any of them built and trimmed out acceptably, especially if they have long grass and follow your methodical testing program of starting with low turns and incrementally increasing the power. But one needs to persevere, and not throw the thing in the garbage if the first flights are disappointing. Your videos illustrate this well.
By contrast, thinking of a chuck glider, thrown at up to 80 mph, if one wing panel is built from less rigid balsa than the other, it would tend to twist nose down more than the other. That is because of the strong aerodynamic nose down pitching moment that cambered airfoils generate at low angle of attack and high speed. There are other types of distortion.
I once built a “Eureka” power duration model from an Aeromodeler plan. I learned that with the powerful Enya .19 used, it could not tolerate going off-pattern. The wing folded in mid-air. It was alright so long as going almost straight up, but if speeding up in a less steep excursion from pattern, the wing was over-stressed. If I remember well, it was well enough built. So testing should have been by very small increments in motor run, confirming each time that the pattern was holding. Also at that time I did not understand the necessity of consistently launching at the same angles. I had better success later with the strong full geodetic I-beam wing of the “Vertigo”, until one day I flew in the rain and the tissue tension was reduced. Even dew can be a problem. One faces the dilemma that lots of dope protects against moisture but may warp the wing.
Anyway, high speed may emphasize the differences due to balsa density and grain, due to tiny misalignments or other building asymmetries. They may sometimes be beneficial, others not. Even if not it may still be possible to trim the model. But the end result may be merely normal, not Stradivarian.
Low speed may emphasize Reynolds Number effects, since, depending on the model size, one may be dipping in and out of the sub and super-critical RN ranges as flight speed changes. In a turn, the outside wing goes faster than the inside. It is possible that this could suddenly put the outside wing above the airfoil’s critical RN, or the inside below. Well, one could fight this with washin or tailplane tilt, but these will need at least a little dihedral if going to be effective, like rudder-only r/c. Maybe a turbulator thread on one side or the other would help.
A particularly difficult thing is to get both sides of the chuck glider wing the same shape, with razor plane, modeling knife and sandpaper. Little variations in thickness, camber, high point are hard to avoid. I am told that it is not easy to get two prop blades identical. Since the boundary layer is so sensitive at low RN, small variations could in some cases cause significant differences in glide behaviour, and issues such as good transition and thermal hunting. One would still have a flyable glider despite bad luck in this, but other times, one unwittingly makes one that seems unable to do anything wrong. It is lost quickly if one doesn’t use a dethermalizer or confine oneself to dawn flying. Even sunset/early evening I have had a thermal flyaway.
In any case, you have shown by test that the VMC models can be trimmed, without going to anything very sophisticated and beyond what could be expected of a beginner who possesses a calm, patient, methodical approach. And tall grass. I think that they are a bit larger than the Guillows. I suspect they also were well tested, and extra dihedral and tail area added for the non-display mode.
I don’t know what the ecological situation may be with balsa. With Sitka spruce, very much has already been cut. I suspect that the much desired quality was found in “old growth” spruce, which are large trees, over 1000 years old. This old wood has a special quality which can’t be matched by replanted 200 year old trees, at least not for musical instruments. But the little remaining old growth is not just an economic resource ($30,000 per tree), the forest is also a unique ecosystem, with flora and fauna which can’t survive in new growth forests. I am content to stay with new grown spruce in order to spare the biological wealth and biodiversity of old growth forests. Maybe a fibre reinforced plastic could be developed that was as good for musical instruments as old growth Sitka spruce. Perhaps some combination of layup directions of carbon fibre, Kevlar and fibreglass, boron whiskers, and various resins? My aging ears are probably not good enough to detect the difference, even were they musically trained. They never had anything like perfect pitch and I can only play a tune by memorizing where to put my fingers, like paint by numbers. When young I always felt I had to have the latest and hottest engine, but now sadly realize that what I needed was just to learn how to fly well, before pouring on the coals.)
Thus E = M* C square !
Enjoyed the efforts !
@@kenrobba5831 Man Piaba. Thank you very much! It occurred to me a few days ago that, gliding, washin works not only because of the differential induced drag yaw moment changing with speed, but possibly also because the washed-in panel may experience higher profile drag ,being near the stall, as can be seen in the graphs of low speed wind tunnel airfoil tests. And the lift curve rounds off up there. The effectiveness of these things would vary with the specific airfoil and with the model's RN. But maybe the drag part is analogous to the floating drag tab used by some free flight modelers in times long gone by. At high speed, as in f/f comp power climbs, many cambered airfoils have peculiar ccstcs near zero lift coeff. Negative stall. Washin would affect how the left and right panels are influenced, as well as by the spanwise varying delta alpha created by rolling (if the pattern is helical). It is way beyond me at this time to pull these ideas together into a recipe for stabilizing the climb pattern by using lateral reactions from the washin effect changing with speed as climb angle changes, and not forgetting that the wing twists at high speed and cambered airfoils can be touchy when forced to fly at low CL, affecting the torsion moment, and that feeding back to changing the alpha with which the moment varies. It is fairly simple if the model can be trimmed to fly straight in a 65 degree climb, and slipstream is arranged to cause the model to nose up if it goes faster, or nose down if it slows up. But to figure out what would stabilize a helical pattern and keep the roll in phase with the turn at varying angle of climb, oh dear, oh dear, i am dead beat and would have to shut up and fly, see what happens. I did notice that it was easy to get a Sleek Streek to fly in a right helix, but to the left, if disturbed, it would stall and hang on the prop, rotating with torque. The right helix was very tolerant of disturbances. On the other hand, a Taibi Starduster flies really well in a gentle left steep climbing turn.
I wish I had your grasp on the details of this hobby enjoyed reading that
Let the propeller running before throwing the plane usually helps to cure the stall, at least for me
Thank bud ill give it a go, waiting for the grass to regrow before doing the free flight, my awesome fields covered in horses now and not got the nice padded grass as a bump matt anymore
High wing models fly best going right under power. Adjust the turn under power with right thrust adjustments, not rudder trim.
Thanks for the input next time we fly whenever that will be ill give that a go,I learnt that on the focke wulf I did later but never thought it was the issue with this at the time,Any tips on how to adjust in a prebuilt plane?
@@scalestuff1066 Basic rule of thumb is to build in a bit of down and right thrust during construction. When finished get the CG where it needs to be, usually at about 1/3 back from the leading edge. Then adjust glide with elevator trim until glide is satisfactory, and begin test flights with low power. Make additional thrust adjustment with shims if necessary. With correct adjustments and proper CG you probably won't need tabs on the wing unless you're dealing with warps. Not to confuse the issue, but low wingers like your Focke-Wulf are best flown to the left.
There's a short video of me on TH-cam launching a small rubber powered plane called an embryo. Search "Launch of Embryo"
@@daveb7811 I know mate I have built over 30 of these planes,this however is my friend scotts first build so just wanted to know how to help him correct the stallling problem in an already built plane,the wings are free from warps,just needs work on the shims
I have been thinking about building some rubber models but it looks like a real PITA to get a reasonable flight?
This is my mates first build,the wing was a bit warped,if you pin the surfaces down while shrinking the tissue the sucess rate and ease of trim goes up.saying that though sometimes you just get a bad kit
VMC are pretty decent kit wise,some of the old reproduction kits like the FROG kits fly well and are fairly easy to build.Just stick with upper wingers and Bi planes for the first kits war birds are a bugger to get flying.Hope that helps mate
The trim instructions for Clarence Mather's Stormovik might be of interest for low wing fighter models. freercplans.com/plan-stormovik-6990.htm He suggests flying it in left circles and the plan calls for 1/16" washin in the left wing (it is not clear where this is measured).
It seems that just choosing the right direction of turn is not necessarily enough, some modeling type adjustments may also be needed. I don't understand why low wings are found to prefer left and high wings, right. I have no idea about how typical biplanes should be flown. Though duration power models seem somewhat comprehensible in this respect, scale is more of a mystery to me.
Maybe I can learn something from my Guillow Bird Dog if the opportunity to fly it occurs again. It seemed fine the first day, but it was quite windy so that I was grateful for the long grass which made it possible to get through the initial trimming in one piece. A building inaccuracy gave the right wing a couple of degrees more incidence than the left and a fairly large right rudder tab was needed for a right turn which turned out to work well. Washin usually has the effect of straightening out the turn if the speed increases, thus preventing spiral dives. This also implies that using full scale style aileron deflections to produce turn can lead to spiralling. So one ends up in f/f using washin opposed to rudder (or fin angular setting). The washin is the opposite to the aileron which full scale or model r/c would use to turn.
I will check that out thank you very much
Ah now that I can shed some light on that, its caused by the prop ,low wings prefer left as the prop pulls them that way and its easier to keep the left wing up than fight the turn (or viz versa its something like that.And for top wings as its above the plane its more stable and balanced and when going right it tends to counter the left wing going down on the turn
Also with bi planes both wings have a different angle of attack so as one stalls the other produces more lift,the two wings add lift but the also increases drag,due to the to angles of attack the planes are more stable but slower flying
If you watch my focke wulf trimming vide the first few flights are ok left but once the powers up it worked better right
@@scalestuff1066 Yup. Propulsion affects trim a lot. Even in full scale they have problems such as torque flipping aircraft off carrier decks when there is not enough airspeed for aerodynamics. I think that the Cessna in the Fly! flight simulator program pulls right or left as the throttle is opened.
Just musing on the topic as props clearly need to be trimmed and adjusted for,I wonder if jet engines have any effects that effect the trim?
@@scalestuff1066 I have never had a true model jet with compressor and turbine, though they are now available, but expensive, I believe. Scale used to use Jetex or ducted fan with a glow plug or diesel engine. Don't know whether rubber band ducted fan would be practical for scale. Maybe with gears? (EDIT: Electric might be great, no problem starting the motor.) Jetex I have used in duration models. It was a sad day when Jetex went out of business. Learned after that the smoke was not toxic. A Jetex engine is a pure rocket with no moving parts. As the fuel burns, the model balance can change if the engine is not at the cg. This is even used to advantage by some. Although there is no rotating slipstream, one can put a tab in the jet blast to help trim power phase independent of glide. This tab could be on the fin or tailplane. Not sure about deflecting the thrust with a tab near the engine exhaust. Don't know whether ducted fan models experience a lot of torque effect. The ducted fan rotating jet outflow does not usually strike the model the way that prop wash does. (EDIT: I forgot that the fan flow would rub on the inside of the duct. No idea whether this would balance the torque. Not having any practical experience with ducted fans my ideas are just speculative.) I think that turbojets might experience some gyroscopic effect from the rotating parts. Excuse my ignorance, I don't even know whether any torque exists from these engines.
OK.. im getting it now..fine model. detail enough for me! Youve found an ideal location there, i can think of a few round here that would suit.
ive built a few statics but only flown kites. (which require short grass to avoid tangles)
with these fly them over the longest grass you can if you have not built them before make sure you dont break them before they get flying just take it all slow and you should be able to get a good model.Most require abit of clay to balance them before they with glide but the instructions cover all of that
If there were available similar right and left hand propellers ...
Yeah would be nice if the vmc stocked them
@@scalestuff1066 They do have a 5 inch reverse, but their Bird Dog kit uses a 6 inch. The 5 inch would suit the Guillow Bird Dog.
@@douglaswilson1005 Yeah,I had a guillows bird dog,dropped a book on it so Iv never got it in the air
@@scalestuff1066 Bad luck! Me too. I've had quite a few first flight losses and total crashes. But we get up and try again. Some models have given great joy and education.
At the start of your video, when your Bird Dog was not flying well to the left, you said that maybe it had a warp. Trying it with a left hand propeller might clarify whether a warp was responsible, or just the intrinsic behaviour of the design due to torque, slipstream, and gyroscopic effects.
What their effects may be depends on the layout of the plane, the amount of power, advance ratio, weight, prop and rubber rotational momentum for gyro effect, lots of things.
Many modellers find that their model only flies well to one side, which could be either right or left , depending on the design, even if there is no warp.
Anyway, so much for assessing whether a behaviour is due to a warp or not.
But this leads into another idea that might be useful.
Maybe one might find that a model flew better with a left-handed propeller.
Some hand launch gliders which I built flew exceptionally well as regards pattern, transition and glide dynamics, thermal keeping. Others did not, and no amount of trimming seemed able to give them the exceptional quality that by luck the others had. Maybe it is tiny misalignments, different wood stiffness in left and right wings, not perfectly symmetrical shaping of the wings, slight undetectable skew of wing mount on fuselage, or of polyhedral joints, etc., combinations. I really don’t know.
Two modellers of world champs level told me that they were unable to get their spare to fly as well as the original. There was no apparent difference in the models, and these men were very good artisans, their models were of a high level of workmanship. One even built on glass, and went to the trouble of taking a rib out of the original wing to help get the spare the same. It sort of is similar to the Oliver engines factory hand fitting pistons to cylinders to find pairs that matched well. The differences between cylinders, or between pistons, were below measurable tolerances. But a human sliding the piston up the cylinder could feel the quality of fit, possibly analogous to how flying shows up the model differences, though too small to see.
The chump on the ground being right-handed, a glider had to climb right. My left-handed throw was very weak. When I started flying catapult gliders, they could be climbed either left or right. With these gliders, I sometimes found that ones which were not very good to one side despite extensive trimming attempts, were quite good to the other, often very easily trimmed too, when to the opposite side they were a frustrating nuisance.
Sooooo, if one had a left-handed prop, one might find that one’s Bird Dog did better with it. Naturally its preferred direction with respect to torque etc would be reversed. Once trimmed for that, maybe it would be found to fly better or worse than before. There are fine and subtle quirks, which in r/c one might not need to worry about, but which in free flight can be important. For instance, in f/f, which wing drops after a stall can be decisive in avoiding progressive stalling, but with r/c one can control that.
I am not suggesting major efforts during construction to get the model perfectly symmetrical and aligned. It can’t be done. What I am talking about is too small to avoid. And some of the imperfections may actually be beneficial. I wish I could analyze and master these things, but I can’t. I just experiment.
To repeat and sum up, what I am postulating is that if you went through the whole same trimming procedure and experiments, but with the opposite handed prop, the end result might be better, or worse. If worse one just returns to the original prop. With my gliders this fine tuning was sometimes well worth it, when catapulting made trying either side possible.
That’s mainly what I meant to say. Hope it is understandable, even if wrong.
I'll certaintly give the left handed prop a go, its interesting you mention about the throws though as I am infact left handed and throwing right handed feels strange to me,unfortunately I'm unable to throw left handed saftly due to an injury to that shoulder
Interesting points though that you bring up about the world champ builders the micro differences in wood grain and stiffness all things that for most people would be very hard to detect.
See this plane is my mates,I built a bird dog model from VMC to and it flew reasonably well with out some of the wobbles and janks that this one had but other than this one been made of better tissue the planes would appear to be the same
No thank you for taking the time to explain some of that it makes sense unfortunately its all theory until its been tried and tested but you have certainly given me a few extra strings to the bow so to speak,to try out in future trimming attempts.Iv had problems like those that you have mentioned before in the past with a few warbird planes some would only fly to the right others wouldn't seem to fly at all and some just flew without anything really been done to them
But thank you again for taking the time to attempt to shine some light on what is going wrong here,this models been a tricky one,and sometimes all I get is a dislike and a snarky comment rather than some idea or theory of whats going wrong so I can attempt to fix the issue
@@scalestuff1066 Thanks a lot for your friendly reply. I had a bicycle accident a few years ago, shattering upper left femur, now titanium, thank goodness, but this has weakened my glider launches. My sympathies on your shoulder, I understand. Maybe you could get the right side competitive, but developing a throwing arm is said to be a painful process, which in youth we don't notice perhaps since determined to do it well. Many girls never bother. After youth it might be more difficult. Possibly there is research on it. Will let you know if I find out something. I will ponder what you have told me about flight test engineering at VMC, and maybe will be able to think of something useful to reply. May take a few days. I like the VMC kits, good selection, attractive, reasonable prices. From watching the videos it looks as if you make an effort to cover the problems which customers might encounter, checking that the model does not require an expert to succeed.
@@douglaswilson1005 Any time, better to engage and learn than disregard,you clearly know more on the topic than I do.Sorry to here about the crash,horrible things injuries they can really pull the rug from under you
Yes that's true about the throwing arm,it kinda happens as a child with out much thought when it comes to all the throwing and catching games that you play as a kid.
Well if you do just drop me a comment,I read and reply to everyone and its always nice to learn from people with a better Idea,free flight doesn't seem to really be my generations thing,think the older crowds grew up with these kits more before the internet and computer games took over.
Thank you I just try and fly them and fix them from a beginners stand point,my actions may not always be correct but I think that they are often the first thing that beginners would try,been one myself
@@scalestuff1066 Yes. One of the hard things for teachers is that they have long since forgotten how hard it was to learn what they know, which makes it difficult for them to empathize with pupils having problems. You may be able to help customers better for this reason. In testing you validate the wing and tail incidence settings, and find the appropriate cg. I think that there are things like this laterally but it will take time for me to organize my thoughts on this. I don't know whether you are familiar with the Sal Taibi "Starduster" competition duration f/f kit. Its instructions tell one clearly that it is to be flown to the left. To the right, one is asking for a crash. But other designs will only tolerate right. I don't know much about how this goes for scale models. One of the commenters said that low wings may differ from high wings. I suppose that this might be something that you could test on each kit you check out.
In this video, from 7:56 to 8:03, a Tiger Moth can be seen started with left-hand cranking. th-cam.com/video/MzlnMRwnzdw/w-d-xo.html
Cheers mate ill check it out
@@scalestuff1066 The Airfix Tiger Moth plastic non-flying scale kit provides a left-hand propeller.
May be a tad tail heavt
Can you explain how and why you think that?Not been funny just this plane proper took the mic to trim for me and would be nice if this crops up in future to be able to spot that for myself,And you recon just a tad on the nose weight to sort that out?