RE: Ed Kazmirski's Taurus
Both my models were built without the tabs. I used a tapered block under the trailing edge and rested the wing on the lower spar. Cut right the tapered T/E block (1/4 sheet) maintains the rib centreline (chord line) however you want. I added a degree of washout in my wing panels. Mould the leading edge sheet, (full 4" wide) by careful selection (Nice light, bendy stock) and boiling water on one side, then tape to the leading edge ribs. Allow the L/E sheet to dry, remove, and glue to the lower side of the ribs for an inch or so. Allow the glue to dry then block the wing panel with the spar and T/E aligned on a flat surface. Glue the leading edge moulding on over the full width of the sheet, tape in place and add the upper trailing edge sheet. When dry, this is sufficient to lock the wing in place. You can remove from the jig, and do the other half. Complete the rest of the sheeting, you can replace in the jig to be certain of alignment, but with the L/E and upper T/E sheeted you can't really get it wrong. There is a lot of wood in the Taurus wing, follow Ed's instructions for wood selection if you can, it makes a light, immensely strong wing. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 5/21/2013 2:13 AM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Classic RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11517957

RE: Ed Kazmirski's Taurus
Joe, the little block is a tab on the rib to maintain wing alignment while you add the pre-moulded leading edge. If you are ok with it you can leave it off and align the wing with the mainspar and trailing edge spar. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 5/19/2013 1:23 AM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Classic RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11515789

RE: EIII Restoration
Add to all that, the closer you get your model to the real thing...you begin to realise just what the early aviators had to put up with, and they had to fight in the thing too...big drag changes with speed changes, big pitch changes with speed changes...limited power and no throttle, in the accepted sense. had to be brave just to fly the things... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 5/17/2013 6:39 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11514767

RE: Ed Kazmirski's Taurus
looking good Joe...! Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 5/17/2013 6:29 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Classic RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11514756

RE: EIII Restoration
Actually, sounds right for a free flight job...but Jaka is right, reduce the wing/tailplane to closer to , say, one degree. Contrary to Jaka, extreme elevator sensitivity sounds like a balance at the rearmost position, move it forward. Loose the expo, only makes the pitch reaction seem poor for a start, then way too much at the ends of the travel. then try again. Evan, WB #12
Posted on: 5/16/2013 10:46 AM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11513317

RE: Ed Kazmirski's Taurus
Yes. I have both the PCM and TF/MAN versions, built from the plans and just cutting the sides as drawn there appears to be no problem with wing/tail angles. Both models are superb fun airplanes. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 5/16/2013 10:39 AM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Classic RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11513311

RE: Ed Kazmirski's Taurus
Though, looking at Ed's model, it looks like he simply raised the wing another 1/4 inch, and matched the fuselage underside to fit. Really simple. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 5/15/2013 10:05 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Classic RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11512846

RE: Ed Kazmirski's Taurus
Uncle willies plan will be the same as the top flite/MAN plan. They are the same, other than the MAN plan having the ribs all drawn. There is a plan, if you can find it, for the PCM version. There are no other commercially available plans. That's it. No 'slimmer fuselage' versions. You can, of course, simply draw a line 1/4 '' lower on the top deck of the plan you have...and presto, the Kaz 1962 model. Chop a couple of inches off the wing tips, and there it is. Or, you can do what every other modeller does, and modify it to what you like. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 5/15/2013 10:03 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Classic RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11512843

RE: Ed Kazmirski's Taurus
OK pt19 flyer...the plan shown here is the first successful Taurus, the PCM (Prototype Contest Model) from 1961. The next Taurus we see is Ed's 1962 Nats version which is one inch longer and has a 1/2 inch lower fuselage top deck (and a 68" wing). Then there is the Top Flite version which is the same length as Eds 1962 Taurus, but 1/4 inch higher, and with the original 70" wing...Ok so far? Take your pick...Then there is the 1963 Taurus 2 (With a really thick wing) which went to the '63 world champs and didn't get flown, but appeared later with a new Bosch airfoiled wing. This one still exists...ask Duane about it...he has all the details. Any help? Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 5/14/2013 11:33 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Classic RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11511968

RE: Covering Question
Not a derogatory reference at all, just down here it costs about twice as much as the equivalent Solarfilm product, and is on par with Oracover...hence Moneycote. Its expensive stuff... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 9/17/2012 10:51 AM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11231246

RE: Flying wing gliding in high winds
F/F = Free Flight. ie, uncontrolled. I begin to see that you want to release an R/C wing from 35,000 ft and fly it down to the ground. Unless it is autonomous, it's gunna be a difficult to see, yes? It would need a degree of self stability, which your average 'Zagi' type does not have, and a programmed heading to seek. I forsee a degree of difficulty, it's really cold at 35,000, and there is not a lot of air to be had, most of it is underneath you that far up, so although IAS will be the same as sea level TAS (and therefore speed over the ground) will be considerably higher. These questions you have could be answered with a search of the usual aerodynamics data bases, NASA etc. This is likely not the forum for thse questions, someone will have done this before, and most of the UAV's already operate in this area, so the answers should be 'out there'. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 9/4/2012 1:06 AM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11216603

RE: Flying wing gliding in high winds
PDN, your question did not state that the glider was controlled, and a 35,000 ft there is no slope lift...nevertheless, the statements I made are true. With reference to your question whether the the glider will 'fly backwards in a stable manner for some time' you should realise, by now, that the thing is never, at any pont, flying backwards. It is always flying at the trimmed speed as determined by its weight, elevator trim position and wing Cl. If gust stability is going to be a problem, then adding a little 'self righting' ability will take care of that. Perhaps the easist way to do what you are proposing is to simply launch a F/F, circle trimmed glider from the balloon and allow yourself and the balloon to descend at the same rate as the glider, though what you will do if the glider catches some thermal lift.... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 9/3/2012 2:16 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11216024

RE: Flying wing gliding in high winds
The balloon and glider are both travelling with the wind, the glider will simply orbit the balloon if it is trimmed to fly in a circle. Neither have any idea that the wind is moving them over the earth. You, on the ground, will see them both moving away downwind. If you don't want to chase the glider too far, then you will have to trim it to fly dead straight, and release it straight into the wind. The glider will always fly at trimmed speed, its speed over the ground will be the vector sum of the wind and glider speeds. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 9/2/2012 9:39 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11215221

RE: will this reciever work?
I was just trying to keep it simple, 'logic language', instead of: 512 or 1024 PCM, positive or negative going, 1.2 or 1.5 ms neutral...you know, all the stuff thats been forgotten since 2.4 became common...Blimey, there are guys at the local club that have never known a single crystal, fixed frequency radio, and asking them about a peg board...I do remember that we recommended not to mix brands as what may work well at short ranges always seemed to cause problems when the model was a bit further away...but then we all remember that stuff, don't we? Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 9/1/2012 2:52 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11213732

RE: will this reciever work?
It depends. You need to check a few things...Do both bits have crystals fitted? Are they both the same channel (frequency)? Are they both speaking the same language (AM, FM PCM)? And that will depend on what the Rx is, and whether the Tx can be changed, if needed. Then you still need to ascertain that the language the Tx uses can be understood by the Rx, given that they are different brands, and may use differing logic languages. First up though, make sure that the batteries are working, and that the tx is radiating a signal... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/30/2012 6:37 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11212124

RE: Proper underbelly color of Bf-109s
Some more, should help a bit... Evan.
Posted on: 8/23/2012 8:16 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11204073

RE: Proper underbelly color of Bf-109s
I'll try that again, the 190 is in the three greys scheme, 74, 75 (on top) and 76 (sides and undersurface). The 109 is 'somewhere on the channel front' and has the yellow tactical markings and the extended 65 scheme. They do show though, the difference between the 'blue' 65 and 'grey' 76. I am not sure what the other upper colours on the 109 are, the book does not elucidate. But you are right, the 190 pics are unique, showing Tank, Blaser and Priller and Prillers old machine, now used by his wingman. Close up it is easy to see just how 'rough' the painting is, and as for the brushed out 'staffel leaders' markings... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/23/2012 7:19 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11204026

RE: Proper underbelly color of Bf-109s
glazier, the first and second pics belong together, it's the same plane, just on two pages. The aircraft is unique, as the story says, and would be a good bit of documentation if you wanted. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/23/2012 12:15 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11203622

RE: Proper underbelly color of Bf-109s
Here we go, I knew I had something... Fw190A-2 is 74, 75, 76, the 109 is mostly 65... Evan, WB #12
Posted on: 8/22/2012 4:02 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11202563

RE: Northern Alliance Military Fly In - 2012 (Owatonna MN)
Oh no laddie, if you had painted a reversed Party signature image 'back in the day' you would be in very deep poo's. The Swastika always points the same way no matter what side of the plane, tank, etc you are looking at... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/15/2012 5:25 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11194989

RE: Vintage Pattern Ships ID
The first model is indeed an Arrow, with a modified fin outline. The other is definitely Bridi inspired. As suggested either foam or there are still plans around for built up wings, probably for both but RCM&E has wooden Arrow wing plans and MAN has foam plans, if you need them. Evan.
Posted on: 8/12/2012 10:11 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Classic RC Pattern Flying"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11191170

RE: Ail differential in friese ailerons?
And yet, all the full size rigging diagrams of the popular WW2 fighters, Spits, 109's and 190's all with Frise ailerons, all show some differential in the aileron movement. Go figure. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/12/2012 10:06 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11191164

RE: Define
Scale, as in a miniature representation of the full size object. A Sig Kadet is not a scale representation of anything, it is, by itself, full size. For most modellers 1/4 scale means 1/4 (25%) full size. 1/4 inch to the foot means 1/48 full size. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/12/2012 5:14 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11190831

RE: Proper underbelly color of Bf-109s
A very good scheme for a warbird, you will appreciate the broad areas of yellow, cause without it you will find that the greys tone in with any cloud, and if you are flying on an overcast day...well, you will find that it works as a camoflage should... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/11/2012 10:12 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11190000

RE: Proper underbelly color of Bf-109s
Yeah, no prob with that at all, the RLM called 65, 76 and 78 all 'lichtblau'. So I guess it was simply a catchall term for a 'light undersurface colour'. As for the shift from the 'blue' (65) to the 'grey' (76) it was a European scheme which was introduced as the air war went defensive, and in european skies, which were pretty grey most of the time, it made sense, else the German camo experts wouldn't have done it. Much the same reason as the English went from the green/brown/ 'duck-egg blue' to greens and greys through the early '40's. The Smithsonian 190F was repainted with 76, or their version of it, I have their publication about the restoration and they have, in brackets next to the listing, (nearly white). So they didn't think it was 'blue' either. Perhaps someone could have a look at that one? I'm a bit far away to see it from here, but I did, a few years ago, do a fair bit of research into the late war colours, only to find that there was no definitive answers. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/11/2012 2:46 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11189631

RE: Scratch Building 1/4-Scale Pitts Model-12
Curtrc, I have been watching this build for a bit and I thought that it would end up way heavier than your original projections...a 1/4 Pitts is a tiny plane and the structure would only need to be minimal. The trouble with computers, cad and laser cutters is that they encourage complexity. You need to get a drawing of the full size structure of the airplane, figure out the load paths, and reproduce it in 1/4 scale. Then remove all that is not required. Your fuselage should be just a box of 1/4 squ balsa or 3/16 squ spruce longerons triangulated to carry wing and u/c loads. The tailplane and fin are wire braced, make the wire work and then the outline can be laminated 1/16 balsa with 1/16 'ribs'. Those fuselage stringers need be nothing more than 1/16 x 1/8 bass on edge, the fuselage is already carrying the loads, so the stringers are just for looks, and should therefore weigh nothing. Treat the wings the same way, the spars and struts, with the rigging wires, make a braced box, the ribs and covering merely streamline the spars, if the spar is a nice 'box then the rest should weigh just enough to support itself, design the thing to fly. Your current weight is already heavier than my 1/4 (84") Pfalz 12 and SSW D3, and they are complete and flying. A good place to start, structurally, is with reference to the old Free Flight jobs, they needed the lightest airframe combined with the strength to survive the landings while coping with minimal power. They were, despite their looks, efficient airframes, structurally. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/11/2012 2:29 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Scratch Building, Aircraft Design, 3D/CAD"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11189613

RE: Proper underbelly color of Bf-109s
Squadron/Signal list RLM76 as FS36473 and say it is based on 'original RLM colour chips', FWIW. And then go on to add that due to the chaotic conditions toward the end of the war there can be many different colours for the same RLM number! Which makes a bit of a mockery of the colour standards anyway... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/11/2012 1:10 AM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11189041

RE: Proper underbelly color of Bf-109s
All too true...If you want a more 'absolutist' answer then a troll through the IPMS (plastic modeller guys) site will show that they have spent much more time and energy tracking the RLM colours. But just for fun there is a well known colour image of a line of factory fresh 190A's waiting to go to the unit and they are in the 4 colour 74, 75, 76, 65 scheme, and even still after all this time the contrast between 65 (blue) and 76 (grey) is, if not spectacular, at least very apparent, the contrast between the blue and grey is very obvious. Consider too, the Nachtjaeger colours, mostly 76, and usually described as 'light grey' airplanes. There was that 'high altitude' 109G unit which is well documented, again 'light grey' all over, painted in 76 again...The Silver Hill 152 is in 81, 82 and 76, has been indoors most of its life, and can't be described as 'blue'. All I know is that I had some two pot mixed to match the most accepted IPMS '76' and thought that it was too grey, and got a 'tint' of blue added to it to match my own preconceptions! Oh well, of such strange ideas are scale modellers made... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/11/2012 1:04 AM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11189030

RE: Proper underbelly color of Bf-109s
An old argument, and one never to be settled, 74, 75, 76 are all greys, 76 may have a hint of blue in it, but the surviving original paints are all greys. Just 'cause the RLM called it 'lichtblau' doesn't mean that the base was blue...The 109 in Aussie shows just how many different ways you can mix 76...78 is a darker blue than 65, which is a real 'light blue', 78 was one of the desert/Med. colours and closer to azure, or a mid blue. Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/10/2012 3:36 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11188649

RE: over heated engine
RPM isn't the problem, it only runs hot if there is either no air over the fins, or no oil in the fuel, ie too lean. Consider that about half the cooling is done by the air, the other by the oil in the fuel... Evan, WB #12.
Posted on: 8/9/2012 5:24 PM by Author "pimmnz" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11187546