What model/engine size combo for an intermediate

I'm looking towards my next model now I've learned many lessons from the current one, and although it's back in one piece and I'm going to carry on practising flying, it'll soon be too broken. Plus there are several aspects I wish I'd designed differently.

I'd like to move up in the PA world, but I don't really know what you get for your money when you go up in model and plane sizes. Does it count that you need a bigger model to get better, tighter more controlled flying, or should I stick with the setups I'm using?

Currently I have a PAW .09 on a 38" span, 340 square inch wing profile of my own dubious design weighing in at about 18oz. I'd like to design the next one again rather than make it from plans, partly because that way I can keep it simple (within my modest building skills!) but I could be persuaded otherwise.

I've only ever used .10 engines, and I could either go to .15 diesel or a .35 glow like the Fox. However I've previously had several planes that were overpowered and over heavy by putting too large an engine on them. I can currently wing-over and loop, but that's the best I can dare with the model's and my capabilities.

So, bottom line is, how do you know when to move up in size, and how do you decide what engine will go with it?

Thanks
Jonathan Dawes

Designing your own is a lot of fun but it's good to have a proven design to start from. A Sig Twister kit, Fox 35, .015 X 60 lines, 4 oz profile tank, etc. would seem to be an ideal combo-inexpensive and very easy to build. Save the plans and scratch build your own creations using the Twister basics. The Brodak Flite Streak is another good basic model, also easy to build, will work well with the Fox 35 and a 3 oz short nose profile tank. The Flite streak is very flyable but perhaps not as desirable as a stunt trainer as the Twister.
Brodak's profile Cardinal or Pathfinder requires more building skill, would be somewhat underpowered by the Fox 35, but are extremely capable and might be a good next step beyond the Twister.

Hi Jim,
really? They'd be easier? Why is that? I must admit I assumed that small models wouldn't get carried away, but I guess large with plenty of reserve power would make for smoothness.
Thanks

Larger airplanes are easier to fly. I highly reccomend the Ukey 35 if you want to advance your flying skills. They don't cost much, they fly very well & they are very quick & easy to repair with 5 minute epoxy. The time you spend repairing a built up airplane isn't wasted time, but if you're trying to improve your flying skills it will slow down the process a lot. Learning to fly the pattern is best done with a handle in your hand out at the field, not at the workbench. If you have to stop flying for several weeks while you make repairs it slows the learning process considerably. One other advantage to a Ukey is that they start out ugly & repeatedly crashing them doesn't really make them look much worse Joe can be reached at [email protected]
If you would like info on setting up a Ukey feel free to email me, I have txt files & pix that should help you.

Kurt- unless you've crashed your Ukey & had to add a lot of epoxy to the inboard wing, you probably don't need more tipweight, you probably need a trim tab. Joe puts in the right amount of tipweight when he builds the wings. It's more likely you have one or the other of the wing panels slightly out of line. I had to put a tab on my Ukey 15 for that reason. I finally did have to add a bit of tipweight to my Ukey 35, but not until after the inner wing had been glued back together so many times that it got heavy. It still flys pretty good

Jonathan, if you can loop and wing over your ready to move up in size. The plane you decide to build or design will decide for you the engine to use. As far as new engine choices go, how about an OS .25 LA or the Fox .35?

Xain
Thinking about it, I can only speculate on why larger airplanes are easier to fly but I promise you they are. With the exception of the Ukey and possibly other ARF's they also usually tear up worse if you have a bad crash. More weight, maybe more speed. As to why they are easier to fly I suppose one reason is that they generate more line tension so that longer lines can be used.Thus lap times are slower, the sky is bigger, line tension is more constant. Perhaps more area and more lift make for a better weight to area ratio, although this is not always true. Perhaps the .35-.40 size engines usually used provide a better power to weight ratio, again this is not always true. Generally however, the larger the model(up to say .35 size) the easier it is going to be to fly-try it for yourself.

>Hi all,
>This is my first post on
>this board, which I've read
>for a while, and many
>of you kind folks have
>helped me out on Iksy's
>board (Jonathan Dawes).
>
>I'm looking towards my next model
>now I've learned many lessons
>from the current one, and
>although it's back in one
>piece and I'm going to
>carry on practising flying, it'll
>soon be too broken.
>Plus there are several aspects
>I wish I'd designed differently.
>
>
>I'd like to move up in
>the PA world, but I
>don't really know what you
>get for your money when
>you go up in model
>and plane sizes. Does
>it count that you need
>a bigger model to get
>better, tighter more controlled flying,
>or should I stick with
>the setups I'm using?
>
>Currently I have a PAW .09
>on a 38" span, 340
>square inch wing profile of
>my own dubious design weighing
>in at about 18oz.
>I'd like to design the
>next one again rather than
>make it from plans, partly
>because that way I can
>keep it simple (within my
>modest building skills!) but I
>could be persuaded otherwise.
>
>I've only ever used .10 engines,
>and I could either go
>to .15 diesel or a
>.35 glow like the Fox.
> However I've previously had
>several planes that were overpowered
>and over heavy by putting
>too large an engine on
>them. I can currently
>wing-over and loop, but that's
>the best I can dare
>with the model's and my
>capabilities.
>
>So, bottom line is, how do
>you know when to move
>up in size, and how
>do you decide what engine
>will go with it?
>

You're ready. There's no entrance exam, just go for it.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I recommend the SIG Skyray 35 and a 20 or 25 LA/FP, or their clones. This will fly better for the amount of effort and price than just about anything else out there. I would also suggest building the kit, and then cloning it a few times with balsa ribs and spars, to get a lighter, more durable airplane. Do a neat job, but don't spend a lot of time on the finish. Use Monokote for the wings and tail, and a synthetic paint of some sort for the fuse. Don't use silkspan/dope, it's too fragile and takes too long. The idea is to get a decent airplane with minimal effort, so that you are not so attached to it, because it's certain to get broken a few times. If it doesn't you're not trying hard enough!

The 20/25 approach will also leave you with a good engine for the next step, something like a 35-sized flapped airplane like the Twister.

I would recommend avoiding vintage engines like the F*X 35, McCoy, etc. Modern engines are just a lot more user-friendly, can run on commonly available fuel, with commonly available props, and without shaking the airplane apart. The older engines also tend to run terribly on profiles. If you already have some old motor, go ahead, but if you are going to get one new, get a modern engine.

Brett

(edited for typos/grammar)

All the advice offered here is excellent and it is from some of the best the US has to offer the sport.

However, as you are in the UK, some of their suggestions may not be easy to source.

U-Keys are available from Just Engines but beyond that...

The OS 25 is probably a perfectly good starting point. Plenty of our US brothers are fans of Fox 35s and there is a growing number who say the OS 25 is an equivalent.

As you have the engines, use the OSes.

Think about a Stuntwind from AMI a couple of months ago. Although, I am a bit wary about the 1/4" sheet wing for a stunt trainer with flaps, several of our friends in the UK report having seen the gadget in action and say it flies pretty well. Also, with the amount of balsa and glue that goes into a profile designed like Stuntwind, I have to wonder whether a full fuselage version might not be lighter and, possibly, stronger. Also, a full airfoil fully sheeted with 1/32" or 1mm might be good. I don't know. The lines of the model and the size appeal to me immensely and I am thinking about building one with variations as mentioned above. I've talked to Mike by email and he says go with the design as published.

Otherwise, according to some of our US brothers,it seems that anything designed for a Fox 35 can be successfuly flown with a Schneurle 25 whatever the brand. On that basis, the plans lists give you astonishing scope. Good building!

The size airplane you have should be very capable with a PAW 09. Why does it keep hitting the ground? Is it because of flaws of design or constuction? My suggestion would be to compare similar size successful airplanes and see if you can improve the design and construction of your own airplane. Whils't doing that, you might make more progress flying with a proven design, either from a kit or a published plan.

The virtue of the larger engine is that you can fly the airplane on longer lines with adequate line tension and enough horsepower that being of a little off on the engine setting is not a disaster. This gives you an apparently slower flying airplane and you can have slower reactions and still be OK.

Anyway, I'd suggest that you stay with your present engines until you can fly inside and outside loops, lazy eights and inverted with good confidence and few repairs. Then build a bigger airplane around a bigger engine and it will impress you as being very easy to fly through more difficult maneuvers.

What is the difference between a small model with a small but well chosen wing loading and a larger model with a similar wing loading?

You can go down the glow motor route. Just engines have a range of C/L engines converted for C/L use at reasonable prices. I would not recommend a full fuselage plane with a large engine .35 cu in or so for the next step until you reduce the number of unplanned landings. I'd also recommend that you get some Tornado props to reduce the breakages incurred with unplanned landings. Hallam models can supply these too.

You can also scan through the C/L plans at the Nexus website at http://www.modelflying.co.uk and http://xlistplans.demon.co.uk.

Blue Pants is a good flyer and easy to build for 0.15 diesels but needs to be modified to sidewinder configuration as the PAW engine stutters when mounted upright leading to buttock clenching moments during overhead manouevres.

A more radical approach is to build a 0.15 diesel powered combat wing and move the C of G forwards a tad to calm it down a bit and use that to explore the schedule> Combat wings are easily built, robust and can be very exhilerating when the C of G is in the right place!

Where abouts in the UK are you?

Out of interest, what would you expect to see if the engine was just too small for the plane? Like if I flew a Peacemaker with my .09?

I flew again this morning and didn't crash once, despite a few loops and wingovers. I had to put it down once because the engine was labouring, and that even went fine.

I can manage a loop with some reliablility now, but it's always a case of close my eyes and pray. It doesn't turn really fast, so squares are right out, but that's probably for the best. Having said that, the bottom of my wingovers are very sharp, remarkably so, it always catches me out when I pull out too high!

The last 2 times my main problem has been engine setup, it leans out so much over the run that either it's too rich to takeoff, or the last 1/4 of a tank is misfire-city. I'm getting there.

As for kits, I found the plans for the Minilord that I tried many years ago with this very engine. It's supposed to be ideally suited, and my dad built it at the time so it should have been a go-er. I can't remember the details but I do remember it wasn't a live one. Maybe that was my fault, but from memory it just didn't turn well. Hard to believe in a flying wing!

BTW I am in Wimbledon, irratating the strollers by flying in Wimbledon Park. I normally try to fly at work, where there is open country though.

Thanks
Jonathan

Hallam models also have a plane called the Hot Plate which is an all sheet coupled flap and eleveator plane which is around £18-20 I should have mentioned this one as I am building one right now. It's designed around a PAW .15 and goes together a treat once the epoxying of the bearers and flap joiners is done and the glue set.
>
>Out of interest, what would you
>expect to see if the
>engine was just too small
>for the plane? Like
>if I flew a Peacemaker
>with my .09?

I can not really comment as I have never underpowered a plane. I imagine that you would get a very mushy flight and if the plane loops, some very open loops. The only thing I have to go on is when my flying partner tinkers with the compression setting and launches my plane with the engine undercompressed, not an enjoyable experience as one is restricted to swoops and recoveries as there is minimal line tension.

>I can manage a loop with
>some reliablility now, but it's
>always a case of close
>my eyes and pray.

Keep them open and enjoy the specatacle! O have one plane with a barn door elevator that can loop i its own length, mind you that's because of excessive elevator movement and the plane has stalled out.

>It doesn't turn really fast,
>so squares are right out,
>but that's probably for the
>best. Having said that,
>the bottom of my wingovers
>are very sharp, remarkably so,
>it always catches me out
>when I pull out too
>high!

I have problems trusting my planes to pull out of wing overs and I often chicken out.
>
>The last 2 times my main
>problem has been engine setup,
>it leans out so much
>over the run that either
>it's too rich to takeoff,
>or the last 1/4 of
>a tank is misfire-city.
>I'm getting there.

Just a thought, check the position of your compression screw before and after flying.. It may be unwinding. I was mystified by the behaviour of two of my PAW engines until I twigged that the engine was decompressing itself during flight leading to a misfire and drop in power. I now use a compression screww lock lever.

>As for kits, I found the
>plans for the Minilord that
>I tried many years ago
>with this very engine.
>It's supposed to be ideally
>suited, and my dad built
>it at the time so
>it should have been a
>go-er. I can't remember
>the details but I do
>remember it wasn't a live
>one. Maybe that was
>my fault, but from memory
>it just didn't turn well.

Could have been too heavy or the C of G too far forwards.
> Hard to believe in
>a flying wing!

My Mercury Picador (0.09PAW) Mercury Toreador (0.15 PAW) and Warlord (0.15 Oliver Tiger replica) are all flying wings and fly a treat. I wore out my aoriginal Mercury planes and have replacements on the building boards.

>BTW I am in Wimbledon, irratating
>the strollers by flying in
>Wimbledon Park. I normally
>try to fly at work,
>where there is open country
>though.

I fly my planes at the end of the street in a large playing field in urban Leeds with no complaints from the public whatsoever. I can also fly at the school where I work but the fields are too waterlooged too often to fly when I have the urge (most days!) and I am a coward when it comes to flying over tarmac!

I have seen Tony Elmore's suggestion about the Hallam flying wings..I would be cautios about these models. My pals have one each...one is sluggish on the lines the other is a wildcat despite them having the same engines and C of G. Go figure!

TTFN

Hallam models also have a plane called the Hot Plate which is an all sheet coupled flap and eleveator plane which is around £18-20 I should have mentioned this one as I am building one right now. It's designed around a PAW .15 and goes together a treat once the epoxying of the bearers and flap joiners is done and the glue set.
>
>Out of interest, what would you
>expect to see if the
>engine was just too small
>for the plane? Like
>if I flew a Peacemaker
>with my .09?

I can not really comment as I have never underpowered a plane. I imagine that you would get a very mushy flight and if the plane loops, some very open loops. The only thing I have to go on is when my flying partner tinkers with the compression setting and launches my plane with the engine undercompressed, not an enjoyable experience as one is restricted to swoops and recoveries as there is minimal line tension.

>I can manage a loop with
>some reliablility now, but it's
>always a case of close
>my eyes and pray.

Keep them open and enjoy the specatacle! O have one plane with a barn door elevator that can loop i its own length, mind you that's because of excessive elevator movement and the plane has stalled out.

>It doesn't turn really fast,
>so squares are right out,
>but that's probably for the
>best. Having said that,
>the bottom of my wingovers
>are very sharp, remarkably so,
>it always catches me out
>when I pull out too
>high!

I have problems trusting my planes to pull out of wing overs and I often chicken out.
>
>The last 2 times my main
>problem has been engine setup,
>it leans out so much
>over the run that either
>it's too rich to takeoff,
>or the last 1/4 of
>a tank is misfire-city.
>I'm getting there.

Just a thought, check the position of your compression screw before and after flying.. It may be unwinding. I was mystified by the behaviour of two of my PAW engines until I twigged that the engine was decompressing itself during flight leading to a misfire and drop in power. I now use a compression screww lock lever.

>As for kits, I found the
>plans for the Minilord that
>I tried many years ago
>with this very engine.
>It's supposed to be ideally
>suited, and my dad built
>it at the time so
>it should have been a
>go-er. I can't remember
>the details but I do
>remember it wasn't a live
>one. Maybe that was
>my fault, but from memory
>it just didn't turn well.

Could have been too heavy or the C of G too far forwards.
> Hard to believe in
>a flying wing!

My Mercury Picador (0.09PAW) Mercury Toreador (0.15 PAW) and Warlord (0.15 Oliver Tiger replica) are all flying wings and fly a treat. I wore out my aoriginal Mercury planes and have replacements on the building boards.

>BTW I am in Wimbledon, irratating
>the strollers by flying in
>Wimbledon Park. I normally
>try to fly at work,
>where there is open country
>though.

I fly my planes at the end of the street in a large playing field in urban Leeds with no complaints from the public whatsoever. I can also fly at the school where I work but the fields are too waterlooged too often to fly when I have the urge (most days!) and I am a coward when it comes to flying over tarmac!

I have seen Tony Elmore's suggestion about the Hallam flying wings..I would be cautios about these models. My pals have one each...one is sluggish on the lines the other is a wildcat despite them having the same engines and C of G. Go figure!

TTFN

Too late - I've already bought 2 Hallam combat wings.

I saw 2 or 3 flying at the Nats and all looked OK!

However - I've also bought a couple of 'RTF' combat wings from Just Engines £15 each or £10 if bought with an engine!

I've also got a secondhand PAW 19 TBR on the way from them - £40 - just an hour running on it!

Hi Jonathan and Vernon (and everybody else)!

When I got back into this lark a while ago I asked much the same questions as you did.

I got more or less the same answers - big models are easier to fly - as a result I ended up with a couple of Ukey's one of which I had the second ever flight in my 47 years (the first being 30 years ago) and my first crash.

I will testify that the Ukey's are pretty easy to repair but would add that they are also (fairly) easy to break.

I've now decided to go down the combat wing route as I've been to combat meetings and seen how much punishment they can take!

Hallam Models have 1.5cc (09) and a 2.5cc (15) size combat wing kits for about £14-15.

I agree with Jim Thomerson regarding going for a proven design rather than designing your own.

Why don't you keep you PAW 09 and get a Hallam Models wing for it?

Regarding the Minilord's lack of turning ability it should have been ok if it was trimmed well. However it was the fashion in those days to have (British) 1/2a combat models of about 22-24" - so the Mini Early Bird (22") came out of the Early Bird (29") and the MInilord (24"?) came out of the Warlord (31") - modern 1/2a combat models have much more wing area and therefore are slower but turn better. Dave Clarkson's Kirin is 34.5" span for a PAW 1.49.

Tone

Funnily enough I did this with a stunt kite and a sea side spade handle at the seaside this summer and i thought that it was an original idea :-0

> many times..yet seems to
>fall on deaf ears...the kite
>will
> absorb your mistakes and
>faux-pas..without breaking..you will
> learn to excecute all
>basic turns and square turns
>without
> risking a built up
>model...I didn't invent the idea..just
>used

I got a real buzz from the manoeuvres and knowing that I couldn't bust the kite meant that I was pulling out of vertical dives with barely a Rizzla's thickness between wing tips and sand, OK so I scraped the sand a bit sometimes but I never bottled out!

A stunt kite is also a good substitute when it's too windy to fly a C/L plane.

I found wingovers a bit of a struggle though

I haven't had the opportunity to see if the newly honed skills are transferable to a C/L plane....been distracted by FF planes and domestic duties not to mention the return to school and the temporary loss of a flying partner!