Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
November 18, 2019, 07:18:14 AM *
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 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Kit Scale 2019 Models  (Read 12161 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #125 on: October 03, 2018, 06:03:17 PM »

Andrew,
As an advocate of kit scale as an event in its own right yourself ..  I am surprised to hear you point me in the direction of open. I still consider myself as an -intermediate' so it's still a big jump for me.


I don’t think I was pointing you in any direction, it was just a general opinion ie there are classes to suit all.  My first statement (paint the model and to hell with it) was obviously what you exactly did by the sounds of it and it worked for you, so why not just do the same again?  I am sure that given your obvious skills that any points lost due to deviations and a painted finish are gained back in terms of workmanship and the “overall character” marks...

The choices remain the same, either follow the kit scale rules verbatim (as I do), deviate and take the hit, or deviate big time and enter open...

Andrew

Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,893


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #126 on: October 03, 2018, 06:29:20 PM »

Like I keep saying Andrew, I'm not as competition focused as some, so ideally I would like to build a model that satisfies me for both competition and just as a flying scale model.
Another example: my Sopwith Triplane did very well in static, but I hate the brown tissue overlaps on the top wing.
If there were yellow triplanes I would probably be happier in this respect!
It's only a minor bug .... it seems to be getting a bit blown out of proportion now.
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 35
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,515




Ignore
« Reply #127 on: October 04, 2018, 03:28:22 AM »


...so you just have to take a best fit approach. If unsure, just build what you like and then decide whether to stick it in Kit Scale, Open, or both.


Haha!  That sums up what's been going on for years with my proposed KS model - a problem par excellence of lack of direction!  It is the Lee's Hobbies Peanut scale Bristol Scout (adapted for CO2) I first started in 2013 (as my first model attempt in 35 years before realising I needed to re-skill with something a bit bigger), resumed briefly in 2015, again in 2017, then again earlier this year, now again again!  In all this time it's gone from being an aeroplane I just wanted to build, more recently to something I thought would serve adequately enough as my first attempt at Open CO2, now finally (because I've got something else considerably more suitable and interesting to me for Open CO2) my proposed 2019 Kit Scale model!

The photos below show the model's various incarnations over the years and illustrate the problems of lack of informed (i.e. read the rules!) decision.  Firstly the paper problem solved by balsa forward and stringers aft, then the doped and part-painted direction I was last heading in (until I realised that the painted areas were too dark and it was wrong to the scheme I liked but which lacked adequate documentation for Open), and also that I had lost the tissue I used on the fuselage and had nothing that would match for the wings!

So I've just stripped the whole lot off!  Now that I've firmly decided on KS, all that's left to resolve is can I keep the balsa decking (yes I will), what should I do with the rear stringers (just cover or replace with thin balsa sheet? probably the latter because it's all aero-modelling activity which is fun!), and how much detail to add?  Replacement proper diameter wheels and pilot are free, as are modifications I've done for CO2 power, basic rigging is essential and I'll stick on the tailplane struts (but no control-horns), and the pilot will need a paper instrument panel of course!

I enjoy all this stuff and the competition element provides the ideal focus.  Of course I'll strive to get the model finished as neatly as possible and with sufficient character etc, and then strive to get it flying to the best of my ability.   It is then completely in the lap of the gods where it comes in the list of also-rans... but fun I'm certainly having!
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Kit Scale 2019 Models
Re: Kit Scale 2019 Models
Re: Kit Scale 2019 Models
Re: Kit Scale 2019 Models
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,893


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #128 on: October 04, 2018, 04:35:06 AM »

Yes, lack of direction is an affliction for me too!

The model is looking great ... I admire you in going smaller when many are going bigger!
I look forward to seeing it purr around a hall in the near future.
What motor are you using?
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 35
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,515




Ignore
« Reply #129 on: October 04, 2018, 06:04:03 AM »

Hi Russ

Its the Gasparin G-28.

I don't know how fast or slow the little Scout will fly in practice.  AUW will be in the region of 20g and the wing area of 56in2 produces a loading of 0.35g/in2.  By comparison the Camel figs are 46g, 83in2 and 0.56g/in2 at which it flew with purpose but not too fast for its small scale. Without any proper knowledge of 'relative' aerodynamics or worrying about the actual differences in design of the two biplanes*, I've had a notion to compare the ratios of the wing area to loading of each model:

Wing areas:  Scout 56 / Camel 83 = 0.67
Loadings:  Scout 0.35 / Camel 0.56 = 0.63

from which I infer that the Scout should be slightly 'lighter' (6%) on a 'standardised' basis.

(*)  Of course the full size Scout was smaller (198 ft²), lighter (1195lbs) and had a lower wing-loading (6.0 lb/ft²) than the Camel (231 ft², 1453 lb, 6.3 lb/ft²).  Running the ratios shows that the Scout was 'lighter' (10%) on the same 'standardising' basis... which we all instinctively knew anyway!  Grin


Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,893


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #130 on: October 04, 2018, 07:04:30 AM »

I've got a G-28 myself, but the only experience I have with it is when I converted my pistachio Pensuti triplane to CO2.
The only thing I can say is that the triplane weighs about 18g with 48 sq.in of wings and the motor would have taken it around nicely ... if it didn't roll into the ground with the limited stability
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #131 on: October 04, 2018, 07:52:01 AM »

Back to the paper thing...

Jon have you tried using decent quality manilla envelope material in lieu of the normal "printer" paper?  It seems to soak up dope pretty well (which stiffens it), with the added bonus that when you cover it in tissue the colour tends to blend better with surrounding tissue due to its "woody" colour....

Andrew
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 35
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,515




Ignore
« Reply #132 on: October 04, 2018, 08:21:19 AM »

Russ - there you go!  Pick up a Lee's Hobby kit from SAMS (very nice trad kits without too many parts, and lots of interesting less-frequently modelled WW1 biplane to chose from) and pop your G-28 in that!  If its a Hun, then... we can have a proper small scale fight over the pits!  Grin

Andrew - that's not a bad idea for the rear decking (I'm NOT going to re-do the front decking again!), especially as there happened to be a BMFA envelope on my desk of just the right colour!  Smiley
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Kit Scale 2019 Models
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,893


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #133 on: October 05, 2018, 06:08:59 PM »

Jon,
I thought i had the Bristol Scout kit ... then realised I have the Nolan Aero peanut kit.
At one time i wondered why you weren’t using the pressed metal cowl!
I did have a Lee’s Hobbies kit or two at one time ... I remember re-gifting one into a raffle.
Not sure quite why now ... I liked the kit.
I was building a peanut for competition, but am tempted to use the g28 in it just for the love of flying ... a lot of my models seem to prefer this mode!
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 35
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,515




Ignore
« Reply #134 on: October 06, 2018, 02:48:16 PM »

"just for the love of flying"... perfect!   Smiley
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,893


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #135 on: October 06, 2018, 02:59:01 PM »

I do seem to have my best flying when alone .... honest!
Were I to enter kit scale again I think my 'weapon of choice' would be the VMC Sopwith Triplane with a gm120. My DPC triplane of 15.5" span flew well at Peterborough with a gm63 but needed full power. At Nottingham I was having reverse starts and ended up popping my ball trying to get enough power.  I can see the vmc and gm120 being a better combination? (Dan would know more than me)
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #136 on: October 06, 2018, 03:12:32 PM »

I ended up popping my ball trying to get enough power.

Did you say that in a Kenneth Williams voice?  Please say you did...

If so, I would like to say “ohhhh Maaatron”

https://coub.com/view/balbj

 Grin Grin Grin Grin

Andrew
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,893


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #137 on: October 06, 2018, 03:27:08 PM »

Maybe slightly more of a Frankie Howerd!
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #138 on: October 06, 2018, 04:23:37 PM »

True!  Grin
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 35
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,515




Ignore
« Reply #139 on: October 07, 2018, 03:03:50 AM »

I do seem to have my best flying when alone .... honest!
Were I to enter kit scale again I think my 'weapon of choice' would be the VMC Sopwith Triplane with a gm120. My DPC triplane of 15.5" span flew well at Peterborough with a gm63 but needed full power. At Nottingham I was having reverse starts and ended up popping my ball trying to get enough power.  I can see the vmc and gm120 being a better combination? (Dan would know more than me)

That sounds about right.  The 63 is perfect in my VMC Camel, but assume the Tripehound has more wing area and drag.  You'll need weight in the nose anyway, and its always better to be able to throttle back for longer flights - whether alone or in company!  Grin
Logged
danmellor
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 56
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,244


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #140 on: October 07, 2018, 07:52:46 AM »

I have one underway at the moment for just that conversion! It means a lot of messing about to get the prop in the right place, but it should come together ok...

Cheers,

Dan.
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 443



Ignore
« Reply #141 on: October 07, 2018, 10:39:22 AM »

Gents

To report back from yesterday's STC meeting, where new rules, corrections or additions were agreed.
re Indoor FF Kit Scale.

150% enlargements of original sized KS models will be allowed in the competition.
However, the burden of proof that it was indeed actually made as a full or a short kit at that size will lie with the competitor to add into his documentation.

A new paragraph to that effect will be added to the BMFA Scale rule book for next year and will be available as usual early in the new year.

Regards John M
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,893


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #142 on: October 07, 2018, 02:18:28 PM »

Jon,
The triplane has given me flights of about a minute .... the gm63 is a lovely motor when used within its limits :-)
Dan,
 I knew I had seen you post that you were trying the same combo. I know you won't underestimate the amount of thrust adjustment needed!
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,893


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #143 on: October 07, 2018, 02:28:00 PM »

Back in 2005 the first outing for my first gm63 was in this Ebenezer ... flat plate and over 50g, it flew surprisingly well in the right conditions.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Kit Scale 2019 Models
Logged
Monz
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 152
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,230



Ignore
« Reply #144 on: October 07, 2018, 02:39:16 PM »

Gents

To report back from yesterday's STC meeting, where new rules, corrections or additions were agreed.
re Indoor FF Kit Scale.

150% enlargements of original sized KS models will be allowed in the competition.
However, the burden of proof that it was indeed actually made as a full or a short kit at that size will lie with the competitor to add into his documentation.

A new paragraph to that effect will be added to the BMFA Scale rule book for next year and will be available as usual early in the new year.

Regards John M

Hi John, that's a bit ambiguous.

The bit in red suggests that decision is in line with outdoor kit scale, where any kit plan may be enlarged to 150%.

The bit in blue goes back to the original discussion of 150% kits, which are available, eligible and therefore don't need any proof.

So basically the STC decision is just to allow a kit that a manufacturer has enlarged and re-boxed.

I almost got excited there!

Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 68
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,893


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #145 on: October 07, 2018, 02:43:57 PM »

Monz,
Put more eloquently than my version of a similar question!
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,987




Ignore
« Reply #146 on: October 07, 2018, 04:00:05 PM »

Thanks, John, both for raising the issue with the STC and for getting back to us. I must say, I thought you were fairly UNambiguous: the message I took was, yes, the 150% models are fine for indoor KS so long as they were once kitted in that form, and I can show evidence to that effect. The only thing I’m still not quite clear about is whether I need to submit a plan from an actual 150% kit, with altered wood sizes etc. specified, or whether I can get away with just blowing up a standard size KK or Veron plan I’ve already got and submitting that with a website pic of the 150% Replikit box?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 04:19:27 PM by Pete Fardell » Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 696




Ignore
« Reply #147 on: October 07, 2018, 05:46:35 PM »

Pete,

I would suggest you need the Replikit plan or a copy of same with the revised wood sizes if thats what was included in the 150% kit. The fact that the structure is unchanged from the original KK or Veron kit is irrelevant: treat it as an entirely separate design. As such, if the plan was amended by Replikit, a blow up of the original KK or Veron item isn’t suitable.

Sounds like i’m splitting hairs, and in a sense maybe that’s true, but it all forms part of documentation by any other name in support of an entry.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,987




Ignore
« Reply #148 on: October 07, 2018, 06:38:50 PM »

I totally agree, Graham. The 'kit plan' has to mean the plan for that kit, and nothing else, or the water gets very muddy and impossible for the judges. Really then, as Monz points out, there is no need for a rule amendment (just a confirmation that the Replikit 150 kits are fine, which is probably all the extra paragraph will be).
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 443



Ignore
« Reply #149 on: October 07, 2018, 07:36:06 PM »

Sorry Monz I should have included your good self with the Gents opening.

Just to try and clear this up once and for all.

Because not all of the original kits were enlarged to 150% size by Replikit, VMC (or any other manufaturer).
ONLY those that can be proven to have been enlarged and commercially offered for sale by Replikit or AN Other manufacturer will be allowed (full & short kits).

That means you cannot blow up any old KK or Veron or Comet etc. original kit that was not comercially offered for sale at that 150% enlarged size.

Pete, KS rules say to provide the original plan for documentation - some of the 'Replikit' and 'Physics of Flight' kits just used blown up original KK (or other) plans, with no wood sizes altered and no manufacturers printed block, or stamp.  So you cannot identify that it was offered as a kit with just the plan (now at 150% size).
Some were altered and stamped up with the new manufacturers name.

So to prevent any issues for the poor hard pressed KS judges, the competitor has to provide additional proof that it actually was kitted at 150% size.
This can take the form of the kit box, an advert, a web page or a statement from the manufacturer, as long as it is proper proof.
If the drawing is re-dimensioned with Replikit or VMC etc. also on it, then clearly that is OK just with the plan.

John M
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10   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!