New version of Peter Russell's 1968 "Striker"

[esc]

Hi guys,

This is my latest project. It is my effort at re-scaling and electrifying Peter Russell's (RCM&E fame) "Striker" pattern plane from 1968.

I am scaling it down to 48" wingspan and creating a lightweight structure that has all the features of the original, aspect ratio, split flaps, tricycle undercarriage and of course the look. I am having problems my tail draggers on the rough field I fly from so I got to thinking and nostalgia kicked in, this is the result.

Obviously I have a lot of work to do yet but I will try to post my progress as often as I can.

Regards,

Dave

[Spooky]

Looking good so far esc, the "New" Striker should make a great addition to your fleet, heck, I'll be tempted to build one if you decide to kit it when your done. (not to rush you or anything :200:)

Subscribed!
Dean

[esc]

Hi Spooky,

A kit - gosh the thought never entered my head! I suppose it is something I might look at in the future but I don't know if I could make the idea reality or not.

Is kitting of personal designs something that happens fairly frequently in the U.S. ? I am not aware of many people doing it here the U.K. True there are some small companies with their own designs and laser and CNC cutting workshops are getting more prevalent.

The main drawback for me I would think might be that I don't have a proven track record in any aeromodelling magazines and breaking into the commercial market might not be that easy.

Another thought might be: If the design is successful and some of you would like to build it people like rcpilot82 with his home built CNC machine might provide cut components upon request - a short kit. You would have to ask him if he would be willing to do that. I know he is thinking of working from home using his machinery.

Regards,

Dave

[Spooky]

Another thought might be: If the design is successful and some of you would like to build it people like rcpilot82 with his home built CNC machine might provide cut components upon request - a short kit. You would have to ask him if he would be willing to do that. I know he is thinking of working from home using his machinery.

Regards,

Dave

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, a short kit, and maybe rcpilot82 would be willing to do the cutting if we get a few people who what one, to make it worth his while. Anyway, we can work that out after your done... no rush esc.:200:

Dean

[esc]

This one is proving slighttly problematical at the nose end - I am not happy with the shape transition and may re-think the fuselage over the weekend.

Dave

[rcpilot82]

Looks good Dave!, cutting some short kits wouldnt be out of the question if dave wants. I can only ship in US though.

[esc]

I didn't like the fuselage so I went back and created another one without all the complications of lofting, modifying surface tangency, etc.

Here is the result. I think it is an improvement?

Guy's I might have to put this project on temporary hold come Monday as I might be getting a big design job in (fingers crossed). So it may be a few weeks before I post any more progress. I will try and get some more done this weekend though.

Dave

[Spooky]

We'll wait for you esc.:200:... Gotta pay the bills first... and I think she does look better, not that she looked bad to begin with.:198:

Dean

[esc]

Thanks Dean,

I got a little more work done tonight but that's probably it for a while now. My wife has me booked for strimming the grass tomorrow - I'm praying for rain :197:

Have a good weekend.

Dave

[Spooky]

I found another airfoil Sim for you to check out called Airfoil Design Workshop, didn't check the price, but here's a link http://www.tdmsoftware.com/afd/ .... they have a demo version.

Dean

[esc]

I found a little spare time this evening so the wing is taking shape:

Dave

[esc]

Thanks Spooky but I bought a copy of Profili. It is pretty good but I discovered that symmetrical sections were not exactly symmetrical - very, very close indeed, but just not 100%. I split the section, mirrored it and that is what I used to generate the wing shown above. It took a heck of a lot of guess work out of the equation and it does generate smooth shapes.

In the end I decided to use the NACA 0012 12% symmetrical section which should given me pretty good wind penetration as well being excellent for aerobatics.

Thanks for taking the trouble to post the information. I will have a look at your link.

Dave

[esc]

A bit more work done. I have to create the wing tips, sheet the centre section, create the split flaps and embed the aileron servos and then I can move onto the tail and fuselage.

[Spooky]

Looking good Dave :198:.... one thing, are you planning on putting all those holes in the wing sheeting, or is that just for show so we can see everything? Just curious is all... you know I had to ask, being the pain in the arse that I am.:200::200::200: He he.....

Dean

[esc]

Yes I am Spooky and no they are not for show - I intend having the parts for the prototype laser cut and so can afford to put the lightning holes in. If you wanted to build one by cutting the parts yourself you could just leave them out.

I will be applying lightning holes to the ailerons too

I've got a little further with the wing but will probably have to leave it at that for now.

Dave

[Spooky]

The only thing is when you cover the wings, those lightening holes will probably show through, showing the outlines, where having just solid sheet it'll be smooth and the added weight will be minimal....Just a thought.

Dean

[esc]

Hi Dean,

Yes, I had already thought of that. That is why I chose 4 holes per section in a fairly small size so I had structure between the holes to make the covering conform to the aerofoil shape. These lightening holes should not be thought of in isolation it's the overall weight savings from from the sum of the parts that make ounces of savings. My philosophy is to save weight wherever I can without compromising the structure. I have to agree that it's a fine line to walk and I agree that sometimes the effort of trying to save weight is just false economy.

That said, you know I am flexible when it comes to these things so I may remove them if I think that they spoil the looks or are not worth the effort - maybe just the front row though where there is the most curvature -hmm!

It's also a possibility that those same holes might make the look more "technical" - if you know what I mean. More thought is required perhaps.

Keep thinking my friend and have a good week.

Dave

[Spooky]

Dave,
Please don't take my thoughts as criticising your design work, that's not my intention, just throwing out any info that might be relevant... They do say that dimples on golf balls make them fly better, just kidding !!!

Have a good one,
Dean

[esc]

Spooky, either you are a little sensitive or I am not giving you the impression I mean to. I value your's and others remarks and comments, and after all you only voiced my first thoughts.

I am a Yorkshireman - now you may not know what that means, but basically we are straight talkers and that is the way we like others to talk to us. So please do not worry about your comments offending me - they don't. My response may have been a little deep but I wanted you to understand why I had done what I had done.

Criticise away if you want. How else do improvements get made.

Dave

[Spooky]

Cool, just making sure we are on the same page... I too am a straight talker (doesn't always come out that way:197:), anyway, enough of that, on with the " Striker ".

Dean

[esc]

Progress is being made, although painfully slowly:

Dave

[esc]

Another picture:

[esc]

The thickness of the tailplane that I chose has been bothering me since I posted the above pictures so I have reduced it by 3% to an NACA 0009 section. The main wing is a 12% NACA 0012 fully symmetrical aerofoil

Dave

[Spooky]

Looks good Dave... I got to install a new graphics card and power supply on my home PC so I could get nice rendered pics too :200:.....

What AUW are you shooting for?

Dean

[esc]

To tell you the truth Dean I have not really bothered with the AUW - after all it is based on a proven design and my version will be lighter pro rata. I could use my solid modelling software to work out exactly what it weighs by inputting the mass data for balsa wood and the other items involved but I don't think I will bother.

I did have some idea of the power to weight ratio I wanted and that would lead me to believe a motor in the range .25 - .32 (electric equivalent) will be sufficient to provide a sparkling performance together with a battery of about 3300mAh - 4200mAh. Ideally I would like at least 15 minutes flight time from each charge. Propeller size will initally be experimental but I am thinking that about 12x8 inches might be about right.

You may notice from the pics that I have enlarged the wheels a little, they are now 2.5 inches diameter to cope with the playing field I fly from.

I was flying my GP Fokker D.VII the other day and it was embarassing to make a perfect three point landing taxi almost to a stanstill and then have the plane flick nose over tail despite full up elevator. It was the uneven surface and the grass that caused that to happen - hence my returning to my trainer days of tricycle undercarriages and large wheels. :-)

I have lightened the tail surfaces a bit since I last posted and I am now working on the fuselage, which is a pig. The one shown above is only an expedient to show things going together. The real fuselage will be more rounded and require about 15 cross-sections. I have made several attempts at it but was never 100% happy with what I had. I am now trying a different tack which seems to be working quite well - more anon.

Regards,

Dave

[esc]

Phew! - finally got the fuselage profile sorted. Granted it does not look anything really special, but believe me when I say it was not at all straight forward.

I can now generate the fuselage cross-sections needed to produce the construction version of the fuselage and that will be my next job.

Dean what graphics card did you buy?

AutoDesk's Inventor, which I use, does most of it's rendering caluclations using the main CPU. You can use an entry level card and still get excellent results. For the computer geeks amongst us my PC is fitted with an i7 quad core CPU with dynamic overclocking, twin mirrored 147GB 10,000 rpm SAS disks, a Sata 300 500GB HDD for archiving (soon to be mirrored), 6GB of triple channel memory and a Nvidia Quadro FX3700 graphics accelerator, which I am very pleased with. This card has now been superceded by the FX3800 but Nvidia support their cards with drivers for 3 years.

Actually these images are a long way from the best I can produce, they are only 900 x 800 pixels, and I have not spent much time adjusting the lighting or playing with the background and shadows.

You will certainly have fun with your rendering. It is something that needs practice and quite a bit of time to get the best out of.

Regards,

Dave

[esc]

A higher resolution image. The original is 2000 x 1500 pixels. This rendering has a reflective XZ plane. Although file compression here has reduced the image quality considerably. The 900 x 800 images seem to be a good, quickly produced compromise for this forum.

[Spooky]

Dean what graphics card did you buy?

Regards,

Dave

Dave, nice set-up you have...

I picked up a cheap, older PCI Express GeForce 8500 GT,-w- 512 MB of DDR2 RAM, running a 500 MHz core clock speed, nothing fancy, but it beats the on-board chip from the factory :208:.... now just have to pick up a 400+ watt power supply...

Making good looking renderings just takes practice, like anything else... but since I'm unemployed, there's no access to a workstation, hence, update the home PC on the cheap. lol


Keep up the good work,
Dean

[esc]

Yes I know what you mean Spooky. I got made redundant a few months back after working for my firm for 22 years (41 years in total employment and never out of work before) and that's when I decided to start my own design business. The current economic situation here in the UK is pretty dire, everyone is holding onto the money they have got. Work is not easy to come by and so I too have more spare time on my hands than I would like.

I upgraded my PC to the spec. I listed above to make me more competitive in the market place, I doubt that I would have bothered if it wasn't my lively hood.

Does your software use the power of the graphics card, mostly the CPU, or a combination of both for rendering?

Inventor uses hyper-threading for rendering and can take full advantage of the quad core CPU that I have.

You know the only difference between the game cards and the professional graphics accelerators are the drivers. Many of the higher specification gaming cards use the exact same chips sets as their much more expensive professional card brothers. I can think of one game card in particular that I would love to try out but I daren't because of the risk of none-certified drivers causing problems.

As for the plane design, to tell the truth I have hit a bit of a low ebb and I have been dragging my heels a bit for the past three days without achieving much. I started work tonight on the fuselage and now that I am making progress with that I feel a little more inspired to pick things up a bit.

Dave

[Spooky]

I upgraded my PC to the spec. I listed above to make me more competitive in the market place, I doubt that I would have bothered if it wasn't my lively hood.

Does your software use the power of the graphics card, mostly the CPU, or a combination of both for rendering?

Inventor uses hyper-threading for rendering and can take full advantage of the quad core CPU that I have.

You know the only difference between the game cards and the professional graphics accelerators are the drivers. Many of the higher specification gaming cards use the exact same chips sets as their much more expensive professional card brothers. I can think of one game card in particular that I would love to try out but I daren't because of the risk of none-certified drivers causing problems.


Dave

I'm running an older version of SolidWorks, so it's not too taxing on the home PC, but without a dedicated video card, you can't do renderings, just shading... but yes, the newer versions of SW will also take advantage of quad-core CPUs. That's another reason I went with a gaming card as you mentioned, similar chipset's as the high end, but a heck of a lot cheaper.... and I'm also a video game player, number one reason.:200:

Yeah, job market sucks here too, and the same thought crossed my mind about starting a business, but, as you know, job market sucks. Anyway, looking at the bright side, we get to fly more without work getting in the way.:197:

Dean

[esc]

Hi Guys,

No progress on the new Striker for a while - I have been having a short break.

Whilst I haven't been designing the Striker I have been doing a bit of reverse engineering (see attached engine pics). I find that whilst I am not working for my clients it helps me to stay sharp modelling something that is a little bit of a challenge. All that is needed now to complete this engine model is for me to finish off the needle valve spray bar.

I will be back on the Striker soon and will post my progress when I have something to show.

Regards and happy landings,

Dave

[esc]

Progess is at last being made on the fuselage.

Dave

[Spooky]

Progess is at last being made on the fuselage.

Dave

Dave,
Coming along nicely... and sweet looking engine too :198:... it's good to take a break from the design and play around, I find it helps to get you back in the groove, I usually have 2 or 3 projects going on, so when I get bored or stuck, I'll mess around with another... keeps it fresh for me.
This fall ( it'll be here before we know it ) there's a scratch-build contest on another forum that would be fun , if your into that, with some very cool and helpful people, I think you would enjoy it. A cohort and I have something very interesting planned.
If your interested, I'll fill in the planks.

Dean

[esc]

Hi Dean,

Thanks for your kind words. It's always nice to have your work appreciated by a fellow enthusiast.

I recall seeing something like the competition you mention on one of the other forums that I am a member of - maybe RCUniverse or RC Groups. At that time it was only of passing interest to me as I was mostly building ARF's.

Now I have decided to "roll my own" I am very much interested and would be grateful if you could tell me more please. The idea intrigues me - "A cohort and I have something very interesting planned" - sounds very clandestine to me :197:

Dave

[Spooky]

I recall seeing something like the competition you mention on one of the other forums that I am a member of - maybe RCUniverse or RC Groups. At that time it was only of passing interest to me as I was mostly building ARF's.

Now I have decided to "roll my own" I am very much interested and would be grateful if you could tell me more please. The idea intrigues me - "A cohort and I have something very interesting planned" - sounds very clandestine to me :197:

Dave

Your welcome Dave, and yes, it's on the "Groups site", but will not start til Nov./Dec., as there is no word yet on the subjects and rules, I guess everyone is still recuperating :plane:.... " Roll your own ", Hmmm, sounds interesting..Lol... I too am mostly an ARF guy who never thought of doing a scratch build until a few guys "over there" talked me into it, but it was both challenging and fun.

Yep, Top Secret Project, but I think when revealed, it'll be quite unique and different, just how I like it.:200:

Cool, another possible entry, should be fun,
Dean

[esc]

I have sorted out the front end which has plagued me a bit. The blend from the box shaped fuselage to the firewall is not at all easy to get right. I know it is not perfect now, but it is not too far off. I am going to leave it as is and progress with the detail work inside the fuselage.

I am sure I will be able to get a smoother transition with block and sandpaper when I build the prototype.

Here are some pics of the current stage of fuselage design.

Regards,

Dave

[esc]

Coming together. And it has now been christened - the "Striker-E":

[esc]

The nose section is now being fleshed out.

The simple grey motor outline (I don't have the motor yet to model) represents an E-Flite Power 32, the biggest motor I had intended might be used. The battery pack is an Outrage 3300mAh 3S 25C and the ESC is a Hyperion 50A BEC, which I do have.

You can just see the receiver off to the left of the picture which is a Spektrum AR500. I have used one of these little gems for a while without any problems whatsoever and as it's a full range Rx, very light and has two aileron inputs so a "Y" lead is not required I thought I would use another. It's also a much cheaper alternative to the AR6200 I was original thinking of using.

The steerable noseleg will probably have to be custom made and I have decided to run it in a brass bearing tube with one collet inside the plane (accessible) and one outside. Just visible is one of the three motor venilation holes on the underside of the nose

Everything is designed for ease of assembly and maintenance. The battery tray is removable so the ESC can be accessed. Motor lead holes and other wiring will also be easy to get at. Slots have been placed for cable ties and velcro battery retainers straps.

Obviously there is still some work to do yet and the design is still elvolving - a lot of lightening holes will be applied when everything is corrently positioned.

Does anyone have dimension details of a typical (8 swg) steerable nosewheel control horn that they could let me have please?

Or perhaps an iges model of a Power 32?

Regards all.

Dave

[Flyjunkie]

Looking good so far Dave :198:

[esc]

Thanks for the encouragement Flyjunkie. It's very much a work in progress and might change quite a bit as it progresses.

A few days ago I had some discussions with the guys on the RCUniverse forum who were kind enough to supply me with the original Peter Russell article that appeared in RCM&E. It turns out that Peter created a later MKII version of this plane which had some quite significant changes.

He slimmed the fuselage down (especially at the tail end), moved the tailfin back and extended the rudder down to the base line of the fuselage. The reason being he got some roll coupling from the high mounted rudder. I considered this and decided I could mix out any tendency to do that on the Tx. Another thing Peter did was move the tailplane higher into "clean air" as it was originally directly in line with the wing. I have already done that, as far as I can, on this design. Of the two models I prefer the look of the original but I can appreciate why he made those changes.

BTW- I like your mascot :198::198::198: I 've got one too!

Question: Why does RCUniverse asterisk out the name of FlyingGiants when you try to input it into a thread? Seems kind of petty to me.

Regards,

Dave

[Flyjunkie]

No probs about the encouragement Dave, its nice to see people "rolling there own" in an age where ARTF's are king! :200:

Also glad to see you like my Flat Eric avatar LOL :200::200:

Not sure about the RCUniverse censor, maybe they don't like to talk about FG on there? Maybe they see it as a rival?

Keep the updates coming.

[Flyjunkie]

Just reading back on your thread Dave, have you thought about going with a fixed noseleg rather than steerable? I personally hate them! They always seem to come lose (usually on the first flight of they day so it buggars you up completely :200:) My dad has an old cresent bullet (im sure you know what one of these is but incase you don't its an old 70's style pattern ship very similar to the Striker) this has a fixed UC nose leg and its held up fine over the last 20 plus years hes had it, completely up to you of course, but locking it up would make things abit more easier/simple !?

Thanks again Dave!

[esc]

Yes I did consider a fixed noseleg but came down in favour of a movable one as this system is actually easier to assemble. The bearing tube can be installed right at the early stages of the fuselage construction without getting in the way of building "flat" on the board.

The leg can then be inserted from the outside once the fuselage is fully finished and the bearing rings fitted. After that it's just a case of fitting the control arm - which is easy to get at from inside the fuselage by just removing the anopy and the screwed down battery tray.

To counteract the problem your dad had there is a solution - tighten the grub screw (flat point preferrably) against the noseleg when everything is lined up. This will mark the piano wire as an indicator so it can be filed to have a flat for the screw point to beardown on and act as an anti-turn device. Then it's just a case of applying a little thread locker and tightening the grub screw again. As an extra precaution a second grub screw could be added but this usually unnecessary.

I must admit it is a long time since I flew a tricycle undercarriaged plane - going back to my trainer days, but I never had any problems with the control horn coming loose by using this method. One extra thing I would recomend is to have a form of servo saver linkage to prevent any possiblity of "kickback" damage to the servo gears.

I can't ever having seen a Crescent Bullet but I would like to - do you have any pictures?

I have made some more progress on the fuselage and changed the motor outline shown for a Scorpion Series II 3026-12 which is an equivalent to the E-Flite Power 32. It has a smaller can size which will allow for better cooling, plus I have been able to get hold of some dimensions for it and the prop boss.

Best wishes.

Dave

[Flyjunkie]

Same here Dave, all of our current planes are tail draggers and the last tricycle UC plane i had was my trainer about 8 years ago!!,Sounds like youve got the idea sorted though :198:.

Heres a (bad) picture of a cresent bullet:

http://www.martinphotos.i12.com/bullet1small.jpg

To be honest ive yet to fly a modern day ARTF that is as smooth as it. :198:

[esc]

Thanks for sharing the picture with us. I still don't recall that particular model though. However, she does look like a very nice plane. reminds me a bit of a Russian fighter.

I have just been working on the revised engine mount for the scorpion motor and this is what I have come up with.

The motor mounting plate is 2mm thick grade 3103 aluminium alloy sheet with 10mm long PEM SOS-M3-10 tapped through hole stainless steel stand-offs. These could be reduced to 8mm long if I decide to add a doubler at the rear of the firewall. This change has allowed for better cooling around the motor and for me to narrow the cut-out surrounding the motor by 3mm a side adding back quite a bit of strength to the horizontal ply plate.

I know what you mean about smooth flying planes but I might have the very ARTF for you - the Graupner Extra 300S-E. It is amazingly smooth and precise. And at £60 it's fairly cheap too.

It has occured to me that I might be boring people with all this intermediate design stuff. Maybe I should post less often and only when more progress has been made?

Dave

[esc]

Hmm! - seems to be a lot of compression on the Extra's picture it should have come through a lot better than it has. Still it will do.

Dave

[esc]

The wing got it's underside infill piece tonight so I could fit the retaining plate in the fuselage for the nylon wing bolts. Just as I was posting this I thought that I might create counterbores in the infill so the bolt heads would be flush or below flush.

Dave

[esc]

Not done much on the Striker-E tonight - just sorted out a problem with a cross-part association and modified the underside wing infill piece as my previous post, basically what you see in the picture.

Dave

[esc]

Quite a bit has changed on the design since I last posted. It has lost a fair bit of weight, although there may be a little scope left to lose more.

Picture 1: The battery tray is now split in two for easy removal for access to the ESC, motor leads and steerable noseleg fittings. Picture 2 shows half of the plate removed.

Picture 3: The radio tray which has lost quite a bit of material as has the ESC/Nosele plate in picture 4.

Picture 5: The wing retaining plate. You will note that I have opted for a small piece of 1/4 Birch ply tapped M6 - this is because of the physical size of an M6 "Tee" Nut - it's too big. This piece has also been lightened.

Picture 6: You can see the now recessed nylon wing fixing bolts in place- much neater don't you think?

Picture 7: Just a general view without the rear turtle decking or front canopy. It shows more weight loss, although you will have to be observant to notice the changes.

I think the next step will be the control linkages for the rudder, elevator, steerable noseleg and split flaps. Then I have the canopy fixings to sort out. I might be struggling after that to find a reason not to start building her.

My apologies for the quality of the images, I forgot to increase the DPI count and so you have got low-res. versions.

Dave

[esc]

I Did some work on the canopy tonight. After considering various ways of fabricating it I decided that I would make it out of laminated pre-cut sections, in that way I can get a hollow shape without too much work

I think I might be able lighten it some more yet.

Dave

[esc]

Hi Guys,

I have decided to use rare earth magnets to hold the canopy in place - shown are the two that will hold the rear of the canopy in place - 8.0mm Dia. x 2mm thick Neodymium magnets and 3off 5mm Dia. x 2.0mm at the front

[esc]

Magnets in place on the fuselage, and a picture showing the 1.0mm gap (total) I have allowed for the canopy clearance.

[Spooky]

Hey Dave, looks like your almost ready to send out the cut files and start building....Then the real fun starts.

Good luck,
Dean

[esc]

Hi Spooky,

She's not far off. I got some work done on her today and might post what I have done tonight (UK time).

I was beginging to think that I was talking to myself. A lot of people seem to be viewing this post but there aren't many saying anything. It's been like the Mary Celeste round here. I had Flyjunkie drop in a while back, which was nice, but apart from that it's just you & me.

I am a little surprised there aren't more designs in progress in this CAD section. It would be nice to see what someone else is doing? I note that a lot of people have viewed the CAD file types thread which leads me to believe that there are probably quite a large number of people doing there own thing. It would be great if they posted some of their work.

How are you and what are you up to?

Dave

[Flyjunkie]

Im still here mate :197: Im loving the CAD drawings (im an engineering student lol) im defiantly sticking with this thread to the end! Keep going!

[esc]

Good for you Flyjunkie. How far into your career are you and what do you want to do when you have finished at school/college/university?

I have been an engineer for 41 years, following in my father's footsteps - it can be personally very satisfying, unfortunately the same cannot always be said for the financial rewards. The engineering profession is very undervalued.

As you are into CAD may I recommend a magazine called "Develop 3-D." It is free under the right circumstances and it may be available through your current educational establishment?

Anyway, I am glad that you are both still with me.

Regards,

Dave

[Flyjunkie]

Hi Dave, ive just finished my BTEC National Diploma in Electronic/Comp Eng, and am heading onto the first year of a BEng in intergrated engineering, as for what i want to do after getting my degree...im not sure! lol BAE systems often do career drives at the college im at so im might aim for a job there...who knows.

[esc]

Today I tweaked the elevator. I transfered and outline of the tailplane assembly minus tips into AutoCAD 2-D to create a control horn. Also to quickly check interference and movement by arraying the elevator around the torque rod centre.

Ideally I aim for 45 degress free movement on all control surfaces and whilst creating the control horn two things became apparent. The first was the the gap I had allowed between the tailplane and the elevator was too great and that when the elevator reached it's limits of travel it would have too sharp a tansition, doing nothing for smooth airflow.

The solution was to close the gap to 0.5mm (which is not too unreasonable) and to round off the top and bottom edges of the bevelled leading edge of the elevator. Much better. You can see this change in the first picture.

I am going to revisit the ailerons and see if there is a similar issue with those, but I don't remember seing one when I created them. If there is I will treat them in a similar manner.

The second picture shows the tiny riblets that act as "spreaders" on the elevator and the method I have used to secure the control horn and torque rod end. The elevator can be built complete and the notch for the control horn cut between the two riblets afterwards - not unlike an ARF.

Piccy 3 shows some more lightening of the rudder. You will probably have noted the anti-curl cross-grain pieces in the tailfin, the rudder has now got them too. These will not be the dark hardwood as shown (done for clarity) - they only require to be hardish balsa.

In picture 4 you can see a 1/32" thick ply trebler I have applied at what is potentially the weakest point of the fuselage. I thought this advisable as all the grain direction in this area is going the same way.

I am now ready to run the control rods through the fuselage.

What I could really do with is some details of the straight control horns on an HS-85MG or HS-81MG servo. Dimensions anyone?

Dave

[esc]

BAE sounds good to me Flyjunkie. In fact they have a branch not too far from where I last worked in Burnley, Lancashire, before I was made redundant - Samelsbury Aerodrome.

BAE offer good careers and training.

Dave

[esc]

Cooling ventilation has been on my mind for a while and I got to thinking about an air scoop on the nose section and what it would look like. It would certainly provide a greater airlfow than the three drilled holes I originally thought I might use.

The scoop seems to have actually improved the looks of the plane and made it even more agressive.

I have had more thoughts about the choice of motor and an interesting alternative to the Scorpion would be an MVVS inrunner/outrunner with an integral cooling fan. They are more expensive but are superbly built, dynamically balanced and therefore very smooth running. Hmm!

Dave