TOPIC: New Models for 2020

Daniel R wrote: Voila!, my anti glare hand painting isn't the best but it'll do.
Yes I know its white and not silver I wimped out on account of how 'revealing' silver is.

Onwards.


All the best.

Oh dear! Do I see a 20/ 15mm EDF R/C version in my future???

Roger adds:

careful, my son, the Devil is at your ellbow!

Another little beauty.

Looking forward to the Old Warden scale weekend. Just got back from a reconnaissance trip in the 172 and I can confirm OW is still there!!! Who's going?

Roger said, "My smaller semi- profile F-100 for L-1 flies beautifully and reliably (winning Peterboro Flying Aces last year in very tricky conditions), whilst the larger (and a bit more rounded) one for L-2 is very twitchy."

I've never tried this strategy of making a profile model to test the stability, find a CG position and so on. I'm intrigued although it sounds like it works. But I'd not expect it to...because surely a profile fuselage with a representative bulge such as a canopy is a lot more like a fin so if its in front of the CG it will destabilise more than the equivelant fuselage!?

So what is the thinking you profile guys? I'm sure I'm missing something!

Most probably in theory the fully 3D model aircraft and the profile model should be treated entirely differently, but so far I have found profiles very useful predictors of the 3D model's behaviour. The side profiles of a fuselage seem to act the same or at least similarly whether 3D or 2D, the side area is the same in both cases after all, go figure.They also save a great deal of building time to prove things like CG, decalage, tail area and nose length, wing location and fin size which are vital to get nearly right with these fast moving and unforgiving little models. They are also very quick to make and modify if needed.The 1mm foam model of the Javelin shown here and a similar one for the Skyray proved everything I needed to know about the bigger profile models that followed and am hoping the one I made for the Sabre will turn out to have predicted the flyability and stability of the 3D version too that I am slowly painting at the moment, we will see.

I think each model has to be taken on a 'case by case' basis. An initial profile model is useful for a quick look see if the planform is at all feasible - rigging angle, CG, tailplane large enough, stall/spin behaviour, but even a successful profile model is no guarantee that a built up version will be equally agreeable.

A case in point is the Draken. The profile version (a very nice Jetex.org kit, BTW) flies splendidly, and is my 'go to' model when conditions are blustery and a visitor to Old Warden wants a demo:



So I thought my 'superscale' version, same planform, same CG, etc, would be equally predictable:



But it is a tricky little beast and demands a motor of just the right power. Too much and it loops into the ground; too little, it glides into the ground. Apologetically, and at some distance away, but still into the ground.

I have yet to find the 'right motor' for it. I'm hoping I can tame this uncooperative Swedish Madam with a TSP L-2 motor that I can 'bore out' to give just the oomph - no more. no less - she thinks she needs. We shall see.