#21
|
||||
|
||||
Okay, now you have done flung a cravin' on me! I have a pile of WWII rubber-powered model plans just screaming "Build me!"
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
CD, It's going to be a flying model :D
CM, build away :D G1 |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for the feedback, G1. Looks mighty fine. Is the undercarriage plug in/ removable for flight ops?
Don |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Stick and tissue was my first love before the paper bug caught hold. Ah! the smell of balsa cement and dope (the cellulose kind) how did we kids get away with it?
Come to think of it I wouldn't mind giving this one a try, so can I hold my hand up for a copy of the plan? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I'd be interested in a copy when it's ready. It looks to me
like those engine nacelles can hold some serious rubber. |
Google Adsense |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Awww, MOONBAT! Every flyboy's Prom Queen fantasy, and as it happens, maybe as attainable: flyers better than--well, me--have been beat down by this plane. Trouble is, stick and tissue is aerodynamically lumpy, rubber's a cosmic joke as a power option, and after you get through all the pretty curves this airplane just doesn't leave you enough of a decent ratio of "clean" flying area to weight to keep it in the air.
But it's just soooo beautiful. Love ain't blind, but it may be impractical, & when you're in love it don't matter. Best of luck! 'Duster |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I once saw a video with a huge B17 (I think) powered by rubber bands - it had something like 8 feet wingspan, and it flew (almost crashed though, but in the end it landed safely)
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Oh, wait, you misunderstand--I flew rubber models for years and love it, but the power to weight ratio is a cosmic joke! (Rubber flyers just have that warped sense of humor, I guess--)
There're several very active organizations dedicated to flying rubber scale models, most based in North America but it's growing in the UK and elsewhere. Google "Flying Aces Club" and look through the links, if interested. 'Duster |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The power to mass ratio is decent, by how the plane flew - only the energy to mass ratio is a cosmic joke - the plane took off up to some 10 feet, banked right (I think) during ascent, rotated around the wingtip to a straight nosedive, recovered bare inches above ground, then flew straight and mostly level another 30 feet or so. It flew less than half a minute, less than a half-decent paper plane. It looked glorious though, too bad I can't find the video
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Ah, that jogged the memory! That was Dennis Norman, and I was there!
We've learned a lot about how to pack longer motors into nacelles since then, and about lightweight geodesic construction in giant planes ( while on YouTube, search "Dave Rees"). Here're a couple recent examples--Vence Gilbert's twin "Surrender Betty" (he only builds "Peace" models--and he's a heck of a musician too), and Peter Smart's magnificent Tupolev at Old Warden a couple years back. I'm not in those guys' class, I made singles. Anybody interested, here're the plans I and a couple friends did, as the "DeathTrap Squadron." --I'm the Michael in the bunch. My drawing & flying buddy Rocky Russo died this winter, and that's a lot of why I don't wanna do the stuff now <snif!> 'Duster |
Google Adsense |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|