SE5a CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING TO . . .
- Thread starter Greyhead
- Start date
M
mcguyver
Guest
your work leaves me in awe. i noticed you detail as you go along i work that way myself. you are without a doubt one of the best modelers ive ever seen. i'm new to this hobby ive been doing it less than a year. i'm working on my third build right now a 1/5 neiuport 11 with working cockpit controls with as much detail as i could shove down the throat of this plane, ive posted several pics of the fuse on this site. ive learned much from your thread. thank you rob
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
Glad you’ve enjoyed the thread and if it’s been any inspiration for your fabulous Neiuport so much the better.
As yourself I work without the aid of sophisticated tools and like to make as much of the models detailing myself as possible. I get a great sense of satisfaction from making things from “scratch” as opposed to a trip to the local model shop to part with hard earned cash!
The down side of all the detailing is of course the added weight and sometimes drag, which makes the models harder (less easy!!) to fly, but in my opinion it’s a small price to pay.
As yourself I work without the aid of sophisticated tools and like to make as much of the models detailing myself as possible. I get a great sense of satisfaction from making things from “scratch” as opposed to a trip to the local model shop to part with hard earned cash!
The down side of all the detailing is of course the added weight and sometimes drag, which makes the models harder (less easy!!) to fly, but in my opinion it’s a small price to pay.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
At long last the strong winds we’ve been having weren’t in evidence yesterday morning so I managed to get the SE5a out to the flying field.
First a range check, then another with the engine running, everything worked fine, so out to the takeoff area, a quick check of the controls and “wow” the elevator’s reversed, back to the pits for a spot of transmitter programming. After all the time I’ve spent setting up the model it just goes to show, never take anything for granted. A certain disaster averted!!
With everything now moving in the right direction it’s back out for another attempt. As I eased open the throttle the model started moving forwards but very sluggishly; half way down the runway and the tail still hadn’t lifted so I closed the throttle. Surprisingly the model carried on and eventually bumped over the “rough stuff”. When I collected the model one of the landing wire brackets had broken; I felt sure it must have been fractured, or at least badly stressed, when I was making it as the ground wasn’t that rough.
No chance of a flight now but I thought I might as well do some more testing, I removed the cowl and tweaked the needle valve for maximum noise and tried a takeoff run again; this time it was a lot better with the tail lifting OK.
I have been a little concerned that my “standard” 13x6 prop looks very small against the large radiator with only a couple of inches of blade protruding into clear air so I fitted the “jumbo” 16x4 and tried again.
This time the acceleration was much better, in fact the tail was up in about a yard and before I knew it the model was a couple of feet in the air. I now had to make a quick decision, keep power on and risk a flight or reduce power and land? Common sense prevailed and I decided on the latter; luckily our mown square at Redmarshall is a good size, even so it was a bit of a bumpy landing but at least this confirmed my suspicions about the landing wire bracket having been weakened as the remaining brackets handled this severe “landing” with no problems.
The bracket was easy enough to repair; I’ve used tinplate this time instead of brass so it should be even stronger. The next fine day and I’ll try again.
I was a little disappointed to not actually get a flight but with a model of this complexity it’s not uncommon to not get off the ground on the first attempt, at least I managed a bit of air under the wings, even if inadvertently!
First a range check, then another with the engine running, everything worked fine, so out to the takeoff area, a quick check of the controls and “wow” the elevator’s reversed, back to the pits for a spot of transmitter programming. After all the time I’ve spent setting up the model it just goes to show, never take anything for granted. A certain disaster averted!!
With everything now moving in the right direction it’s back out for another attempt. As I eased open the throttle the model started moving forwards but very sluggishly; half way down the runway and the tail still hadn’t lifted so I closed the throttle. Surprisingly the model carried on and eventually bumped over the “rough stuff”. When I collected the model one of the landing wire brackets had broken; I felt sure it must have been fractured, or at least badly stressed, when I was making it as the ground wasn’t that rough.
No chance of a flight now but I thought I might as well do some more testing, I removed the cowl and tweaked the needle valve for maximum noise and tried a takeoff run again; this time it was a lot better with the tail lifting OK.
I have been a little concerned that my “standard” 13x6 prop looks very small against the large radiator with only a couple of inches of blade protruding into clear air so I fitted the “jumbo” 16x4 and tried again.
This time the acceleration was much better, in fact the tail was up in about a yard and before I knew it the model was a couple of feet in the air. I now had to make a quick decision, keep power on and risk a flight or reduce power and land? Common sense prevailed and I decided on the latter; luckily our mown square at Redmarshall is a good size, even so it was a bit of a bumpy landing but at least this confirmed my suspicions about the landing wire bracket having been weakened as the remaining brackets handled this severe “landing” with no problems.
The bracket was easy enough to repair; I’ve used tinplate this time instead of brass so it should be even stronger. The next fine day and I’ll try again.
I was a little disappointed to not actually get a flight but with a model of this complexity it’s not uncommon to not get off the ground on the first attempt, at least I managed a bit of air under the wings, even if inadvertently!
B
Bluewavestudios
Guest
Thanks for the Progress report Grahame,
Nice to see you are doing everything properly especially after all the hours and work invested in this model. It would be a shame to spoil it now. I hope all the teething problems iron out nicely, there's always bound to be the odd one or two with any new model and at least you have found yours.
Sounds like your decision on prop size has been made for you by the plane itself, Glad to hear she got some wind underneath her wings at last too, even if it was only a short hop. I can only imagine you are looking forwards to a proper flight with her now.
Keep us updated and if you get the chance, send some piccies of her airbourne too, I am sure she will look great in the air.
Regards.......Mark
Nice to see you are doing everything properly especially after all the hours and work invested in this model. It would be a shame to spoil it now. I hope all the teething problems iron out nicely, there's always bound to be the odd one or two with any new model and at least you have found yours.
Sounds like your decision on prop size has been made for you by the plane itself, Glad to hear she got some wind underneath her wings at last too, even if it was only a short hop. I can only imagine you are looking forwards to a proper flight with her now.
Keep us updated and if you get the chance, send some piccies of her airbourne too, I am sure she will look great in the air.
Regards.......Mark
G
gilesfordcrush
Guest
Hello Grahame,
Any more test flight activity?
Giles
Any more test flight activity?
Giles
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
Sorry for the delay Giles but here it is!\ said:
The Se5a had its first “real” flight 2 weeks ago now but I’ve been on holiday so the write up has had to wait; the flight wasn’t without its problems, but it flew well and looked good.
There’s nothing major that needs doing but as always seems to happen with my models the first flights highlight a few things that need some work.
The 14Ba bolts used to secure the landing wires just aren’t strong enough, at least one has sheared off at every landing so I’m in the process of replacing them with solid pins. I don’t want to make them too strong, as I’d prefer them to shear off on a heavy landing rather than over-stress the airframe.
My previous SE5a had very poor aileron response, and a Flair “scout” flown by another club member is the same; therefore I had set this model up with quite a large amount of aileron deflection. I don’t know if it’s because I’ve used the scale aerofoil section this time or that the gap between the wing and aileron is shrouded but this model certainly doesn’t suffer from poor aileron response. The flight was very “exciting” until I switched to ½ rates!
It is also quite sensitive on elevator despite the CG being at the forward limit. I had controlled the elevators using separate servos on separate channels slaved together, the elevator and spoiler channels. Unfortunately this made the elevator trim only move one elevator, meaning that the spoiler knob had to be used as the trim control, this proved to be too coarse and I couldn’t trim for level flight. Before I left for my holiday I ordered a “Y” lead with servo reverse and have now fitted that so the elevator trim works as normal now.
The ground handling was pretty good so I decided against fitting a gyro but I have bent the axle to impart a few degrees of toe-in as suggested by Glider Guider, a lot cheaper!! I’ll let you know how well or other wise it works if we every get some decent flying weather.
Here’s some information that may help Linney with the calculations for his SE5a.
Wing span 58 in.
Wing area 1220 in²
Weight 9¼ lb.
Prop 16 in. dia x 4 in. pitch
Static revs. 6800 r.p.m.
Of course I don’t know the all-important figures for lift, airspeed and drag, which you really need to do any meaningful calculations. All I can say is that there is sufficient lift at what appeared to be a ”scale” airspeed and the large diameter low pitch prop turning at fairly low revs overcame the drag much better than the 13 x 6 prop at higher revs.
B
Bunkerbarge
Guest
Sounds quite an event Grahame. The big question though is are there any pictures?
Congratulations on completing a stunning build that would make any museum proud as a static model but to have all that and and RC model makes it something of a rarity.
Also very many thanks for the many hours of entertainment you have provided us all with in your build thread. Almost as much work has gone into that as has gone into the build itself.
Simply beautiful model, a joy to watch you build it and I'm sure it will be a joy to see her in the air.
Congratulations on completing a stunning build that would make any museum proud as a static model but to have all that and and RC model makes it something of a rarity.
Also very many thanks for the many hours of entertainment you have provided us all with in your build thread. Almost as much work has gone into that as has gone into the build itself.
Simply beautiful model, a joy to watch you build it and I'm sure it will be a joy to see her in the air.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
No photos as yet, I like to get all the “bugs” sorted out at a safe altitude!
When I’m confident that everything’s working as it should, then I’ll do some low, slow fly-pasts for the camera, hopefully not too far in the future, but it all depends on the weather.
When I’m confident that everything’s working as it should, then I’ll do some low, slow fly-pasts for the camera, hopefully not too far in the future, but it all depends on the weather.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
As was shown in a previous post the theoretical top speed for my SE5a using the 16x4 prop is 26mph, this gave me some concerns, however, looking at a ”typical circuit” eased those concerns somewhat.
At 18% scale the speeds would be
Take off: not below 9mph
Climb out: 10.8mph
Level flight: 14.4mph
Touchdown: 8.1mph
The maximum speed is given as 123mph, it doesn’t say if this was obtainable on engine power alone but somehow I imagine this was the absolute maximum speed the airframe could withstand before the wings ripped themselves off or something equally terminal happened! At “scale” speed this equates to 22.14mph so my theoretical top speed of 26mph sounds reasonable.
Of course the theoretical top speed doesn’t take into account the drag factor and models always seem to fly faster than “scale” speed but in practice it has worked out OK so I’m happy to stick with the large prop even if it does mean that the engine is somewhat “over-propped”.
At 18% scale the speeds would be
Take off: not below 9mph
Climb out: 10.8mph
Level flight: 14.4mph
Touchdown: 8.1mph
The maximum speed is given as 123mph, it doesn’t say if this was obtainable on engine power alone but somehow I imagine this was the absolute maximum speed the airframe could withstand before the wings ripped themselves off or something equally terminal happened! At “scale” speed this equates to 22.14mph so my theoretical top speed of 26mph sounds reasonable.
Of course the theoretical top speed doesn’t take into account the drag factor and models always seem to fly faster than “scale” speed but in practice it has worked out OK so I’m happy to stick with the large prop even if it does mean that the engine is somewhat “over-propped”.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
I wanted to add this as an edit to the last post but there doesn't appear to be an "Edit" button anymore!
Edit
Just got some more information, thanks Peter; the maximum speed with the 200h.p. Wolsey Viper was 138 mph so obviously they didn’t fall apart at 123 mph! At 18% that still works out OK for my model at just under 25 mph. not that I really want to fly at maximum speed, I prefer low slow passes!
Strange, I've just added this because the "Edit" button is on this post, but still not on the previous posts???
Edit
Just got some more information, thanks Peter; the maximum speed with the 200h.p. Wolsey Viper was 138 mph so obviously they didn’t fall apart at 123 mph! At 18% that still works out OK for my model at just under 25 mph. not that I really want to fly at maximum speed, I prefer low slow passes!
Strange, I've just added this because the "Edit" button is on this post, but still not on the previous posts???
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
On the last trip to the field it was a flat calm, very unusual for our Redmarshall site.
As expected the take off run was considerably longer than on previous occasions, although the grass is kept short, at scale it is still the equivalent of taking off in a field of mowing grass so there is plenty of rolling resistance. If the model is taking off into a 5 mph wind then the airspeed is 5 mph faster than the ground speed; it even has an air speed of 5 mph when standing still!
What did surprise me was the rate of climb, or lack of it, once the model left the ground. In fact by the time it had gained sufficient height to make a turn I was quite concerned that it was so far away that orientation would soon become a problem. This is where I made an “error of judgement”; I turned the model to the right. The model lost some height executing the turn and was now only just visible above the hedge line, then I realised in the direction the model was now travelling the ground was rising at a gradient about the same as the models rate of climb so there was insufficient height to make another turn, so I closed the throttle and set the model down in the middle of the barley field.
When I got the model back I tried adjusting the needle valve just in case the engine wasn’t quite “on song” but it had no effect. I tried again; this time I was better prepared and had a successful flight but I’m going to try a smaller diameter prop to increase the engine revs, hence the maximum air speed, because although the model flies OK it is obviously marginal.
I’ve ordered an APC 15x4 but I’m going away in the caravan for a week so it’ll be after that before I can test it; watch this space!
As expected the take off run was considerably longer than on previous occasions, although the grass is kept short, at scale it is still the equivalent of taking off in a field of mowing grass so there is plenty of rolling resistance. If the model is taking off into a 5 mph wind then the airspeed is 5 mph faster than the ground speed; it even has an air speed of 5 mph when standing still!
What did surprise me was the rate of climb, or lack of it, once the model left the ground. In fact by the time it had gained sufficient height to make a turn I was quite concerned that it was so far away that orientation would soon become a problem. This is where I made an “error of judgement”; I turned the model to the right. The model lost some height executing the turn and was now only just visible above the hedge line, then I realised in the direction the model was now travelling the ground was rising at a gradient about the same as the models rate of climb so there was insufficient height to make another turn, so I closed the throttle and set the model down in the middle of the barley field.
When I got the model back I tried adjusting the needle valve just in case the engine wasn’t quite “on song” but it had no effect. I tried again; this time I was better prepared and had a successful flight but I’m going to try a smaller diameter prop to increase the engine revs, hence the maximum air speed, because although the model flies OK it is obviously marginal.
I’ve ordered an APC 15x4 but I’m going away in the caravan for a week so it’ll be after that before I can test it; watch this space!
B
Bunkerbarge
Guest
My heart was in my mouth reading this post and I thought for a second that you had lost it!
It makes sea trials seem quite a sedate affair compared to a maiden flight.
It makes sea trials seem quite a sedate affair compared to a maiden flight.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
I would imagine the first trials with a boat are slightly less nerve racking than with an aircraft, presumably so long as the model doesn’t sink there’s not a lot that can go wrong that would be terminal.
Having said that I remember my brother and myself converting a model cabin cruiser to radio control when we were lads. It was the old single channel radio gear with a rubber-powered escarpment, no servos in those days!
Everything worked fine in the bath so it was off to Abbey Park pond. We sent the model straight out from the bank, press and hold the button and the model turned right, release and straight ahead. So far so good, another press and a left turn started, release the button, the model continued to turn left and proceeded to complete left hand circles gradually getting further and further from the bank.
Luckily not far away was the paddling pool with several kids in bathing trunks; a bit of bribery soon got one the lads to agree to a trip in the big pond to recover the model. He waded out and got hold of the model but on the return leg to the bank he decided it would be easier to swim, the problem was he did a very rough version of the crawl! Our shouts were to no avail and the model was duly returned full of water.
Surprisingly enough we took the circuit board out from the case, put it in the oven on a low heat and it was soon back working as good as it ever did, which isn’t saying a lot!
After that we went back onto aircraft. Although the models usually crashed, they were relatively cheap, it was the radio gear that was expensive, we thought we were very lucky to get away with one thorough soaking and didn’t want to repeat the experience.
Having said that I remember my brother and myself converting a model cabin cruiser to radio control when we were lads. It was the old single channel radio gear with a rubber-powered escarpment, no servos in those days!
Everything worked fine in the bath so it was off to Abbey Park pond. We sent the model straight out from the bank, press and hold the button and the model turned right, release and straight ahead. So far so good, another press and a left turn started, release the button, the model continued to turn left and proceeded to complete left hand circles gradually getting further and further from the bank.
Luckily not far away was the paddling pool with several kids in bathing trunks; a bit of bribery soon got one the lads to agree to a trip in the big pond to recover the model. He waded out and got hold of the model but on the return leg to the bank he decided it would be easier to swim, the problem was he did a very rough version of the crawl! Our shouts were to no avail and the model was duly returned full of water.
Surprisingly enough we took the circuit board out from the case, put it in the oven on a low heat and it was soon back working as good as it ever did, which isn’t saying a lot!
After that we went back onto aircraft. Although the models usually crashed, they were relatively cheap, it was the radio gear that was expensive, we thought we were very lucky to get away with one thorough soaking and didn’t want to repeat the experience.
B
Bunkerbarge
Guest
Just as a little smile to everyone and to remind you of how easily things can go wrong there is a little story with the attached pictures.
I bought this Joffre off eBay a year or so ago with the intention of tidying it up a bit and using it with my Envoy as she is the same scale and roughly the same period. Anyway the internals were a bit on the loose side and I had trouble getting it to work so it stayed on the shelf until yesterday when I thought I would give it a trial.
I fitted a new reciever, a new speed controller and a new 7.2 Tamiya pack, bought only last weekend at Harrogate. Tried it out and it all worked fine but the motor did seem a bit firece. Stuck it in the bath and she sat a bit low but bang on the water line so took it down to the pond this morning and tried it out. Sure enough the motor was too much and at full throttle she dug in a bit and pushed the bow down more than I would really want, especially with the freeboard not being too great. So a couple of things to do but she looked good and I was pleased that an internal strip out would give me a nice model.
The last five minutes and a couple of kids turn up asking about the boats so I said I would put the tug back in and show then how it worked. I went right across to the other side to the point where I can't see exactly what is happening and started to bring it back when I thought, "She looks a bit low!" A couple of seconds later and she looked even lower!!! A couple of seconds later and up went the stern and down she went!! A hush went over the crowd as everyone looked at the little loose dingy bobbing around in the water, all that was left to show where it had been.
I was more annoyed at the loss of the new speed controller, reciever and battery pack than anything else but the loss of a boat is always dissapointing as well. The lads all suggested I get the club boat out and go for a bit of fishing, which I really thought was a waste of time but I gave in and thought I'd have a go. I paddled around for a half an hour or so fishing with the grappling hook and rope, amid cries and jeers from the bank as to where everyone thought it had gone down. To my amazement I snagged it and brought it up, mostly intact, but with a couple of pieces missing and a few broken bits. Would you believe the propeller was still turning!!
Anyway lessons to be learned:
1) If it looks low in the water, you're probably right, remove some ballast!
2) If the motor is too powerfull, it probably is, slow it down!
3) If the deck coamings look low, they probably are, build them up!
4) If you notice all three at the same time, don't put it in the water!
At least I provided some light relief and entertainment for a half an hour or so and I am now forced to "Tidy Up" the model whether I want to or not. I've given the electrics a wash out with distilled water and they are now drying out so I might be lucky there.
Anyway I'm glad I got a couple of shots of her first, I at least know how to put the mast back together!!
View attachment 16870
View attachment 16871
View attachment 16872
I bought this Joffre off eBay a year or so ago with the intention of tidying it up a bit and using it with my Envoy as she is the same scale and roughly the same period. Anyway the internals were a bit on the loose side and I had trouble getting it to work so it stayed on the shelf until yesterday when I thought I would give it a trial.
I fitted a new reciever, a new speed controller and a new 7.2 Tamiya pack, bought only last weekend at Harrogate. Tried it out and it all worked fine but the motor did seem a bit firece. Stuck it in the bath and she sat a bit low but bang on the water line so took it down to the pond this morning and tried it out. Sure enough the motor was too much and at full throttle she dug in a bit and pushed the bow down more than I would really want, especially with the freeboard not being too great. So a couple of things to do but she looked good and I was pleased that an internal strip out would give me a nice model.
The last five minutes and a couple of kids turn up asking about the boats so I said I would put the tug back in and show then how it worked. I went right across to the other side to the point where I can't see exactly what is happening and started to bring it back when I thought, "She looks a bit low!" A couple of seconds later and she looked even lower!!! A couple of seconds later and up went the stern and down she went!! A hush went over the crowd as everyone looked at the little loose dingy bobbing around in the water, all that was left to show where it had been.
I was more annoyed at the loss of the new speed controller, reciever and battery pack than anything else but the loss of a boat is always dissapointing as well. The lads all suggested I get the club boat out and go for a bit of fishing, which I really thought was a waste of time but I gave in and thought I'd have a go. I paddled around for a half an hour or so fishing with the grappling hook and rope, amid cries and jeers from the bank as to where everyone thought it had gone down. To my amazement I snagged it and brought it up, mostly intact, but with a couple of pieces missing and a few broken bits. Would you believe the propeller was still turning!!
Anyway lessons to be learned:
1) If it looks low in the water, you're probably right, remove some ballast!
2) If the motor is too powerfull, it probably is, slow it down!
3) If the deck coamings look low, they probably are, build them up!
4) If you notice all three at the same time, don't put it in the water!
At least I provided some light relief and entertainment for a half an hour or so and I am now forced to "Tidy Up" the model whether I want to or not. I've given the electrics a wash out with distilled water and they are now drying out so I might be lucky there.
Anyway I'm glad I got a couple of shots of her first, I at least know how to put the mast back together!!
View attachment 16870
View attachment 16871
View attachment 16872
B
Biplan
Guest
Excuse me for popping in like this, but I just found this forum and thread.\ said:
According to an SE5a ace, Ira Jones, the plane could reach nearly 200 MPH in a dive. I've read the first half (about WWI) of his book "Tiger Squadron", first printed in 1945, numerous later reprints. The better part of the first half contains Ira's diary.
A short resume about Ira is found here: James Ira Thomas Jones - The Aerodrome - Aces and Aircraft of World War I
Tom
Oslo, Norway
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
Richard
Very nice photos, she looks really well on the water and I hope you’re as lucky with the drying out as we were. With modern encapsulated electronics I think you stand a very good chance of things working OK, except perhaps the servos as these have a degree of mechanical parts.
Tom
I’ve had several comments about the maximum speed for an SE5a and you’re absolutely right my 123 mph is way too slow. Information I’ve received suggests that they could in fact reach 225 mph safely in a dive, I say safely because presumably the pilots survived to tell the tale! I have realised where I made the error; I was quoting from an article about the Shuttleworth restored SE5a and the 123 mph must be the maximum speed that this is allowed to fly at these days, obviously they’re going to be very, very careful with such a valuable machine. I assume that the take off and landing speeds are comparable to WW1 days.
Anyway, welcome to the forum and I hope you find it interesting, any more information you may have about the SE5a will be gratefully received.
Grahame
Very nice photos, she looks really well on the water and I hope you’re as lucky with the drying out as we were. With modern encapsulated electronics I think you stand a very good chance of things working OK, except perhaps the servos as these have a degree of mechanical parts.
Tom
I’ve had several comments about the maximum speed for an SE5a and you’re absolutely right my 123 mph is way too slow. Information I’ve received suggests that they could in fact reach 225 mph safely in a dive, I say safely because presumably the pilots survived to tell the tale! I have realised where I made the error; I was quoting from an article about the Shuttleworth restored SE5a and the 123 mph must be the maximum speed that this is allowed to fly at these days, obviously they’re going to be very, very careful with such a valuable machine. I assume that the take off and landing speeds are comparable to WW1 days.
Anyway, welcome to the forum and I hope you find it interesting, any more information you may have about the SE5a will be gratefully received.
Grahame
B
Biplan
Guest
I've now got to page 6 of this thread and I'm learning a lot. I made a typo in post #656, the year is 1954 (the edit button does not appear although I'm logged in).
I've read somewhere - can't find it again, maybe it was just a beeline to a photo - that the dihedral was reduced at some point during the production.
I've read somewhere - can't find it again, maybe it was just a beeline to a photo - that the dihedral was reduced at some point during the production.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2004
- Messages
- 611
- Points
- 16
- First Name
- Grahame
Just to bring you up to date on a couple of modifications to the SE5a.
I had bent the axle to give a few degrees of toe-in. It did improve the tracking initially but because of an unforeseen flaw in the design I’ve now straightened the axle again.
The axle passes through holes in the undercarriage legs and is held by bungee cords. Having bent the axle it was slightly “V” shaped and was positioned in contact with the base of the axle fairing with the apex of the “V” pointing to the rear to give toe-in. When I checked after a couple of flights the axle had rotated, the “V” was now pointing forwards, giving toe-out, exactly what I didn’t want! Presumably the friction in the wheel bearings produced enough torque to overcome the friction of the bungee cords, the ground handling wasn’t too bad before, especially for a model of this type, so I decided to abandon the idea.
I moulded the noses of the bombs from rubber both for safety and to make them less prone to damage; however, the rubber I used has proven to be very susceptible to the affects of fuel / exhaust emissions, the detailing has virtually melted away and they are very sticky.
I have replaced them with some dome shaped rubber feet from Maplin Electronics, they are made from much more robust rubber so I hope they will not suffer the same fate.
As you can see from the photo the new noses are not the correct shape, are slightly too small in diameter and have no detailing but you have to be pragmatic about these things.
I think they are quite acceptable especially with the arming vanes in place and when seen from a distance slung under the model.
I had bent the axle to give a few degrees of toe-in. It did improve the tracking initially but because of an unforeseen flaw in the design I’ve now straightened the axle again.
The axle passes through holes in the undercarriage legs and is held by bungee cords. Having bent the axle it was slightly “V” shaped and was positioned in contact with the base of the axle fairing with the apex of the “V” pointing to the rear to give toe-in. When I checked after a couple of flights the axle had rotated, the “V” was now pointing forwards, giving toe-out, exactly what I didn’t want! Presumably the friction in the wheel bearings produced enough torque to overcome the friction of the bungee cords, the ground handling wasn’t too bad before, especially for a model of this type, so I decided to abandon the idea.
I moulded the noses of the bombs from rubber both for safety and to make them less prone to damage; however, the rubber I used has proven to be very susceptible to the affects of fuel / exhaust emissions, the detailing has virtually melted away and they are very sticky.
I have replaced them with some dome shaped rubber feet from Maplin Electronics, they are made from much more robust rubber so I hope they will not suffer the same fate.
As you can see from the photo the new noses are not the correct shape, are slightly too small in diameter and have no detailing but you have to be pragmatic about these things.
I think they are quite acceptable especially with the arming vanes in place and when seen from a distance slung under the model.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
maratia
Guest
Fantastic!!!! Great job!!! Its wonderfull !!!
I never saw one airmodel with as many details as this !!!
Angelo, from Porto Alegre city, Brasil.
I never saw one airmodel with as many details as this !!!
Angelo, from Porto Alegre city, Brasil.