Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
December 05, 2019, 04:55:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Mercury Mallard  (Read 1556 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I hate trees
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 94

Topic starter


Ignore
« on: January 13, 2013, 04:45:40 PM »

Hi,
After having fun with the Junior Mallard, I'm going to build the full size version of the Mercury Mallard.
I have just got hold of a really nice radial mount Elfin 2.49.

Looking at the plan there is an interesting issue, the wing section is drawn on the plan but I also have a copy of the printwood with ribs.  I have attached the two sections, apologies for the rough tracing.  The printwood section is thicker and has more undercamber and the section shown on the plan is thinner and less undercamber.  I wonder if the section drawn on the plan is original or was just on the particular plan that was copied, having been drawn on by the plan owner and not HJN?  any one have any ideas?

The next question is which section to use?  The one on the plan looks quite like NACA 4409 or such, and should be a good section for power, but the other section is, I presume, what was intended, and is similar to the Junior Mallard, I'm leaning toward this one.  What do you think? will it make much difference, if any?

I haven't been able to get down to any building for a while but I want to get cracking on this model!
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Mercury Mallard
Logged
mick66
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 298



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2013, 08:50:31 AM »

Hi

I'm pretty sure the section isn't on the kit plan ... only the print wood.  Thats the one you need to use.  Mallard is a great model for vintage competition rounds flights but looses out big style in the flyoff.

Trim as per a SLOP model with down and left thrust ... right climb and left glide.  With the short moment the downthrust gives a VIT effect on the tail.  Both mine have radial mount CS Elfins 2.49cc running at around 13.3K on thin blade master 9x4s  Get to about 900ft in 18 seconds.

Cheers

Mike


« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 09:23:56 AM by mick66 » Logged
gossie
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 49
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1,734



Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2013, 04:07:11 PM »

My copy of the 48in Mallard plan came from NZ with the rib copied in pencil onto it from the kit.   It's the thicker one you show at the top with the inset leading edge.
Logged
I hate trees
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 94

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2013, 03:56:17 PM »

Thanks guys,
Its as I expected.  I suppose I better make a start soon.
I'll keep you posted on progress
Cheers,
Adam
Logged
I hate trees
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 94

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2015, 06:42:27 AM »

Well, I said I was going to build it, it's just taken 2 years to get down to it.
After flying the Junior Mallard back in November and having a lot of fun with it I decided to go for the large one. 
I had cut the ribs out back in 2013 so I had a start.
I seemed to have a year of not being able to get down to any building for various reasons.  Hopefully I've got back into the groove.
I'm going to try to get this finished in a couple of weeks and keep the momentum up, we'll see how that goes.
Happy New Year to all of you Power guys on HPA.
Adam
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Mercury Mallard
Logged
Balsa Ace
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 25
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 466


FAC Member



Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2015, 08:20:50 AM »

Looks great,Adam.

Scott
Logged

Hawker Sea Fury FB.11
HMCS Magnificent
VF-871   Royal Canadian Navy
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 279
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,163




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2015, 09:56:09 AM »

Nice!     Nostalgic memories of my Elfin version at Fairlop in the '50's.    Flew it right/right in customary manner and it was a good model for its time.  Youthful ambition destroyed it when I switched the Elfin for a McCoy .19RH ..... not surprisingly that was too much for the wings.
Logged
glidermaster
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 861




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2015, 06:16:17 PM »

I love stories like that Jim!

Nice work Adam, I look forward to news of flight testing.
Happy New Year all!

John
Logged

Gliders are a part of me.
gossie
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 49
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1,734



Ignore
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2015, 09:19:56 PM »

Looking good Smiley
Logged
Hepcat
OOS, January 2019
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 278
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,777



Ignore
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2015, 06:54:16 AM »

Adam,
I have not built a 'Mallard' but I think the lower wing section in the drawing (less camber and thinner) would be best if you are using a powerful engine and want the model to climb fast.  If you are using less power and depending on the glide the upper one may glide well but even then it is rare for a Free Flight model to like thick wing sections.
John
Logged

John Barker UK - Will be missed by all that knew him.
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 279
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,163




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2015, 10:09:21 AM »

Though the Ben Buckle redraw of the plan shows an airfoil I can't remember if such was on the original Mercury plan.  I have a suspicion it wasn't but will be happy to be corrected .. it was, after all, over 60 years (   Roll Eyes  ) ago when I built the Mallard  .. but I do remember that the airfoil, as per printwood, was unduly thick for a power model.  I guess it seemed okay at the time....
Logged
tonyshepherd
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 1
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 37



Ignore
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2015, 04:30:09 PM »

I believe that some of the Ben Buckle drawings have had the wing sections added as guesswork during the redrawing. This is Ok when it's for sport models but isn't quite so good when it's for BMFA comps. I just had a look at Mike Woodhouse's Free Flight Supplies plans pages and he has a copy of what looks like the original Mercury plan and it includes separate sheets for the ribs. Only £5 (usual disclaimer applies
Logged
I hate trees
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 94

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2015, 05:47:46 PM »

Fear not, my copy of the plan was from the original and not anybody's redraw.  The rib is from the print wood sheet so is as Henry J intended!
In fact, with the original 2.49 Elfin on board its going to be almost exactly how a Mallard would have been if built in 1950 but with the inclusion of a modern clockwork timer. 

No further progress to report as my modelling space has been taken over by boxes of bathroom equipment while we have a new bathroom fitted.
Logged
I hate trees
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 94

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2015, 04:24:59 PM »

The Mallard is finished, finally.  It has also flown successfully.

I took it up to the 3rd Area meeting a couple of weeks ago and had a try with it.  Other than needing less tail tilt and a tiny bit more elevation it looked pretty good.  I was not able to get the engine running really well to try full power but I took it home in one piece and was happy that it had finally taken to the skies.  It was very calm and the model was circling up above my head and dt'ing down a few yards away.  It's not like that very often.

I need to do a bit more ground running with the Elfin to get the settings right ready for the next time out.

Onto the next project, which might have an electric motor in it.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Mercury Mallard
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 514



Ignore
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2015, 04:43:14 PM »

Adam-how does the full size compare with the Jr Mallard in terms of flying and trimming? I built the latter (I'm aware you have done as well) but have found it such a pain to trim I've semi retired it.  The Jr version is way way over elevated if built to original plan (mind you so is the APS Dizzy Diesel)-leading me to be extremely suspicious as to the accuracy of some of the early UK plans.....

 ChrisM
 'ffkiwi'
Logged
Ployd
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 298




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2015, 05:46:22 PM »

The Dizzy-Diesel needs its wing incidence reduced by 5mm (3/16") before it will work.

Ployd in OZ
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Mercury Mallard
Logged

"So I collect engines, what's your problem?"
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 514



Ignore
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2015, 01:48:24 AM »

I know Peter-one look at the DD plan is enough-to anyone with a bit of experience with pylon models-but how many were built to the plan by neophytes in all innocence and destroyed in trimming...? This sort of thing annoys me-quite apart from the harm it probably did at the time and possibly discouraged people from going further...

 ChrisM
'ffkiwi'

Logged
I hate trees
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 94

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2015, 04:30:33 AM »

I would say that the Mallard seems to be set up about right with the Elfin 2.49.  I may have reduced the wing incidence slightly as I built the pylon as a result of the Junior Mallard experience.  But as I said, I haven't got up to full power so will let you know when I try that.  It looks like its going to fly ok.  There have been a lot more Mallards built and flown successfully than the Junior Mallard.  That said, with the Junior, if you reduce the wing incidence etc it goes really well.  The PAW.55 has a fair bit more go than a Dart or Amco, I would guess.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!