Gladys no.81.pub - Sheffield Society of Aeromodellers

ISSUE No.81
SPRING 2002 Jan - Mar
The Sheffield Society of Aeromodellers
page 1
The Newsletter of The Sheffield Society of Aeromodellers
Production
Editor :- James Michael Bowles (Mike)
5 Worcester Drive Sheffield Sl0 4JG
Tel:-0114 2304813
E-Mail: jim_bowles@LineOne.net
The Editorial Team:
Mike Stott - ace reporter and photographer
mike@brdlands.freeserve.co.uk
Terry Gregory - committee liaison, events and progress chaser
terryh.gregory@btopenworld.com
Brian Johnson - researcher (things of interest to write about)
Original items published in The Newsletter of the Sheffield Society of
Aeromodellers may be reproduced in club and society newsletters, providing that
both the author and the newsletter are credited.
It would be appreciated if a copy of the publication could be forwarded to the
author of the item, (via the editor at the above address) so that he/she is aware of
its use.
Permission most be obtained before using any item commercially.
The views and opinions expressed in any article printed in the Newsletter may not
necessarily reflect those of the editor, the committee or membership of the SSA.
The SSA, its Committee and membership do not accept responsibility for any
advertisement placed in the newsletter by individuals or commercial entities or for
any safety (or any other) advice published in the newsletter.
In other words - Use your common sense and don't blame us if it goes wrong!!
Subscriptions are available from the editor, at only £6:00 (UK) for six issues.
Cover Page:
Carl Vernals with one of his “from scratch” models. He specialises in “little ones”.
Back Page: Lee Watt’s launches one of his “big-ones”
page 2
Editorial by Mike Bowles
I have been asked to pose some questions about Club nights. “To have club nights or
to not have club nights” that is the question posed by everyone who has ever
organised our winter programme at some time or other. So Terry Gregory is in good
company when he asks this question once again. Attendances at our meetings vary
from the regular handful to a crowd when we can pull in the big names. Despite that
we have had some enjoyable sessions when a few just sit around and chat about the
things we are doing or have questions on.
Recently Phil Jackson gave us two excellent evenings. Firstly with the computerised
flight simulator and then he filled in with a first class demonstration on how to
produce fibre glass covered foam wings when George Stringwell had to give back
word on his scheduled visit. It was a pity that more people couldn’t have made these
sessions.
When the attendence hits single figures Terry rightly asks, “Are we getting good
value from the room rental at the Norfolk Arms?”. He also asks, “What do they want
at the meetings? And even, “Where do they want them?”
Several times the question has been asked, “Is the Norfolk Arms the wrong venue?”
“Would meetings be better attended if they were held at a more central location?”
Only you the members can answer these questions so please, please write in and say
what would inspire you to attend regularly and whether the venue influences your
decision. We know that some people find the Norflok Arms club room a little
depressing and many have stated their objections to going home with their clothes
smelling of cigarette smoke. Do these factors influence your attendance or not? The
days when smokers were the majority have long gone and today the larger number of
non-smokers find it difficult to compromise their health and wellbeing for the few
who cannot live without their fag.
Onto a different topic and as I have said previously we want to represent every
aspect of flying that is of interest to our club members. In this issue we have a
feature on indoor flying by Trevor Faulkner. If you haven’t visited the Bradway Scout
Centre on the first Saturday of the month then why not give it a try. I enjoyed my
first visit there in February and was surprised to find such a keen following. Young
and old were there to enjoy learning or demonstrating their skill with a wide range of
models. There are a few pictures to whet your appetite on pages 25 and 26.
If you want to learn the art of building light or improve your trimming skills this is an
excellent way to do it. And it wont break the bank either.
page 3
Where are they now?
page 4
SSA AGM Minutes
page 5
Kaoda Nagit
Tim Scowcroft
page 9
The Multiplex Alpina
Lee Watts........
page 12
Indoor (and Other) Ruminations
Trevor Faulkner
page 14
Elektro-Lite Glider
Mike Stott
page 16
The DH 88 Comet
Phil Barrett .....
page 20
Aermacchi 339 (EPP)
Mick Battison..
page 22
One Year On
Terry Gregory
page 23
Tutorial Role for Trevor
Mike Bowles.....
page 24
Indoor Photo Shoot
Mike Bowles.....
page 25
SSA Survey
............................
page 26
Circa 1950-2
Do you recognise anyone?
Where were they flying?
Where are they now?
page 4
Sheffield Society of Aeromodellers
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
8.0pm,
Apologies
8th December 2001,
Norfolk Arms, Ringinglow
Tim Scowcroft, Malcolm Green, Gordon Smeeton
1.0 President’s Introduction and Report
1.1 The President, Alex Jeffery, said that it had been a most difficult year because of the foot and
mouth outbreak, which had disrupted flying, and access to the slopes had been lost for about 6
months. However, some other clubs had suffered more. On a positive note, the foot and mouth
problem had promoted interest in electric flight, and there was now a dedicated group of
electric fliers with excellent electric sports models. This is a good way to fly when the
conditions rule out the slope and the EPP foam makes for very durable models. He
recommended that anyone with a slight interest in electric flight should have a go.
When the slope re-opened it was very busy and learners were much in evidence with a good
number of juniors who will hopefully become club members.
1.2 Alex congratulated Simon Jackson who will represent Britain as part of the Senior F3J team in
Finland and wished him well.
2.0 Minutes of the Last General Meeting
2.1 The minutes of the last General Meeting of December 2000 were accepted as a true and
accurate record. Proposed Phil Lockwood, Seconded Mike Stott. Carried unanimously.
3.0 Matters Arising
3.1 Item 3.2 Parking at Callow Bank. Discussions with the management of the North Lees Estate
suggest that the situation is unlikely to improve and the management policy is to try to confine
parking to particular areas, so parking at Callow during the summer is likely to be difficult. If
it becomes a safety issue it will be taken up again.
4.0 Chairman’s Report
4.1 The Chairman, Terry Shinn, thanked members for attending. He noted that the average age
of the club members continues to rise and that the nature of the club continued to evolve, with
the slope now being a stronger interest than thermal flying and there is a strongly emerging
interest in electric flight.
4.2 He stressed the need for new committee membership. The old brigade need an input of new
blood and he stressed that the majority of the existing committee will be resigning at the end
of the coming year, and there is an urgent need of replacements. He suggested that potential
committee members could ‘shadow’ existing members to get a feel for what is involved, and
cited the example of Jim Bowles, Mike Stott and Terry Gregory and colleagues who have
successfully taken on the production of the club magazine Gladys. From the floor, Terry
Gregory said that Tim Scowcroft would also be prepared to help.
4.3 Terry reported that 3 long established members died this year.
Derek Smith, John Kelsey and Jim Chalmers, all long time club members passed away this year
and will be sadly missed.
4.4 Terry announced that Phil Lockwood’s efforts as the previous Editor of Gladys were to be
acknowledged by the presentation of a gift, which was awarded to Phil by Alex Jeffery.
4.5 Two members, Trevor Faulkner and Bernard Henwood, were awarded Patron membership in
recognition of their contributions to club activities.
Trevor is the current Free Flight Secretary and has competed in both World and European
page 5
events, very successfully runs the Indoor events at Bradway and is currently involved in the
fight for continued access to Blackamoor.
Bernard Henwood is a long time Thermal soaring enthusiast and past winner of the National
Championship. He has served as previous club chairman, editor of the magazine and was
responsible for successfully restoring access to castle Dyke.
Trevor and Bernard were presented with their certificates by Alex Jeffery.
In accepting their certificates, Bernard said how nice it was to be on the same pedestal as
Graham Freeston and remembered how in the battle over Castle Dyke the Council and local
residents had very different views. He also recalled the birth of the current magazine, and said
how much he’d enjoyed this.
Trevor said that he’d joined the club in 1966 when the club met at the Technical School on
Leopold Street and flew indoor models. Later he’d produced a club newsletter on the College of
Art Roneo stencil machine. He recalled how popular indoor flying had been in 1966, and pointed
out that the last indoor event (2001) was probably the best ever.
4.6 The Chairman closed by thanking the membership for attendance, and wished all well for the
forthcoming year.
5.0 Treasurer’s Report
5.1 The Treasurer, Ken Gledhill, presented the audited accounts, and copies of the balance sheets
were available to the membership at the AGM. Even though the membership was slightly down
from last year the club has a bank balance similar to last year at £2177. He noted that this
balance had been maintained for roughly the last decade, the balance in 1990 being £2200.
5.2 The rents for slope and rooms for the coming year are expected to be the same as last year.
5.3 The audited accounts were accepted as a true record. Proposed Terry Gregory, seconded Mick
Battison
6.0 Membership Secretary’s Report
6.1 The Membership Secretary, Martyn Johnson, reported that the club membership was down
slightly from previous years, probably due to the foot and mouth problem which was probably
the reason that many of the expected late re-joiners had not rejoined. He said he would send
out reminders to encourage them to join again this year.
The total membership this year was 95, slightly down on the more usual membership of about
110. However, funds had been maintained at a reasonable level, and the presence of 5 junior
members was an encouraging sign.
7.0 Events Secretary
7.1 Terry Gregory reported that the events season had gone well. He hoped that attendance and
interest in the events would be maintained.
7.2 Martyn Johnson asked for members with email addresses to make sure that they were on the
club records so they could be made available to the editors of the magazine.
8.0 Free Flight Secretary’s Report
8.1 Trevor Faulkner said that the dreaded foot and mouth outbreak had made it necessary to cancel
all the F1E meetings this year. As a result, there were no trials, and none of our members
( qualifying for this years International Contest ) were willing or able to travel to East Europe.
However, a ‘get together’ had been arranged for mid-November which had turned out to be
successful. A calm day on Callow Bank allowed the unusual opportunity to fly slow –flying
soarers and to get in some circle-flying practice. Another informal meeting is planned for next
Sunday (9th December)
8.2 The Indoor scene is healthier than ever before. The December meeting had the best
page 6
attendance ever ( perhaps the free drinks and chocolate biscuits were the attraction). Most
encouraging was the presence of a young lad with his first model, a really well built effort.
This is very remarkable these days.
The current standard model for Indoor Contests was published in both Gladys International
and the BMFA News. It has become an accepted model for Indoor Contests at meetings in the
North and a number are flown at our monthly meetings. It is intended to keep the same model
for contests in 2002 as it seems ideally suited to our flying site.
8.3 Trevor also drew the memberships attention to a less pleasant matter, the threat to flying on
Blacka Moor. Without going into too much detail Trevor said that Balcka had been used for
model flying for 50 years and is specifically mentioned in the bye-laws. However, there is now
a proposal from the Sheffield Wildlife Trust to limit flying for one third of the year as Blacka
is now of Special Scientific Interest. This qualification and its recognition by English Nature
allows it to be funded by the Lottery Heritage Account ( This money is not available to the
Sheffield City Council, who are happy to rid themselves of management costs). The site was
gifted to the Sheffield people by Alderman Graves, And although Sheffield Wildlife Trust say
they intend to keep it as before, the threat to our recreation is ominous.
Trevor said he realised that not many SSA members fly at Blacka, but it is central to the clubs
free Flight activities and is an approved ( at present ) Power site ( with the exception of jet
and rocket models ). Trevor emphasised the need to present a solid front to the Council, to
Sheffield Wildlife trust, to English Heritage and ultimately to Europe, if the conservation
lobby is to be resisted.
Trevor urged all club members to write to Councillor Martin Brelsford ( who looks after the
‘Quality of Life in Sheffield’ ) at the Town Hall in Sheffield, demanding that we maintain
access to the site for 12 months of the year. He pointed out that 50 years of use had not
prevented the site becoming a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Trevor ended by saying that it wasn’t often that the average club member is asked to do
anything for the club, but paraphrased John F Kennedy by saying ‘…Ask not what the SSA can
do for you, but what you can do for the SSA….’
9.0 Thermal Secretary’ Report
9.1 No report.
10.0 Slope Secretary’s and Scale Secretary’s Report
10.1 No report
11.0 Election of Officers
11.1 The Chairman reminded the membership that the majority of the committee had served for
several years and had declared that this coming year would be the last that they would be
prepared to undertake. There is an urgent need therefore for new committee members to be
found if the club is to continue.
11.2 The current Committee was willing to stand for re-election ( although only for the next year
in most cases)
The Committee would thus be:
President
Alex Jeffery
Chairman
Terry Shinn
Treasurer
Ken Gledhill
Newsletter
Terry Gregory is Magazine Representative
Thermal Secretary
Vacant
Junior Secretary
Vacant
General Secretary
Dave Mangnall
page 7
11.3
11.4
Membership Secretary
Martyn Johnson
Free Flight Secretary
Trevor Faulkner
Events Secretary
Terry Gregory
Slope Secretary
Vacant
Scale Secretary
Vacant
The committee members individually explained to the membership what the job entailed and
pointed out that from January 2002 Committee Meetings would be once every 2 months
rather than monthly.
After considerable discussion from the floor, Colin Troise and Mike Stott volunteered to join
the committee, and Bernard Henwood additionally proposed that Tim Scowcroft be co-opted
onto the committee. This was seconded by Jim Bowles and carried unanimously.
The existing committee members were re-elected unopposed
12.0 Subscriptions
12.1 Since the BMFA rates are to be the same as last year the committee suggested that the club
subscriptions should remain as last year. That is;
Full member
£22 BMFA plus £23 Club
Total £45
Retired ( non-working or student )
£22 BMFA plus £10 Club
Total £32
Junior
£12 BMFA plus £6 Club
Total £18
Where appropriate, if both a parent and a junior are members and qualify for family
membership of BMFA the attendant saving in BMFA fee would apply.
This was then proposed by Terry Gregory and seconded by Martin Tricklebank. Carried
unanimously.
12.2 From the floor, Phil Lockwood proposed that the committee members should have the whole
club subscription paid by the club rather than the £10 contribution as at present. This was
seconded by Martin Tricklebank. Carried unanimously.
13.0 A.O.B.
13.1 No propositions were received prior to the meeting
13.2 Terry Gregory proposed a vote of thanks for Christine Gledhill for organising the Christmas
Dinner, Quiz and Social Events.
13.3 Phil Lockwood complimented the magazine staff on the new ‘Gladys’
The Chairman closed the Meeting at 9.43 pm.
page 8
Kaoda Nagit
I first saw the Kaoda Nagit in January 2000
when the late Derek Smith brought his newly
built model to the winter model show (I
believe that unfortunately Derek never had
the opportunity to fly his Model). I was
impressed by the finish of the components on
display but went no further than looking up a
review in the QFI magazine. Then one day in
September I was on my way home from a
meeting in South Wales and traffic problems
forced a detour through North Derbyshire. On
a whim I visited a recently opened model shop
in Lower Pilsley. I had looked around and
purchased some balsa and was talking to the
owner about ARTF models when he showed me
the Nagit and on an impulse I bought
one for the huge sum of £99.95.
Tim Scowcroft
All the components are all well made, the
fuselage is crisply moulded with only a slight
seam but it does feel a bit squashy however, it
looses this feel once the other components
have been fitted. There is also a black
fibreglass moulded canopy. The tailplane and
fin are balsa, lightened by having holes drilled
and covered in Cub Yellow Profilm. The
tailplane joiner tubes are also fitted.
The wings are white foam skinned with balsa
with a layer of glass cloth underneath; these
are also covered in the yellow profilm. There
are circular cut outs for aileron servo bays in
the wing lower surface and tubes installed for
The kit consists of:
An epoxy glass fuselage & Canopy
Two wing panels
Tail plane
Rudder
Bag of small components
page 9
the wires, mini servos being required for the
wings. The ailerons are pre fitted and hinged
with Diamond tape, a brass joiner is preinstalled and the wings have a ply root rib
fitted. There is also a pre-drilled hole for the
wing incidence peg.
The bag of components contains wing joiner,
incidence pegs, Brass tubes push rods, nylon
clevises, nylon aileron and rudder horns, servo
plate, rudder hinges. There is also a sheet of
decorative stickers.
In my opinion you cannot build a model to this
state and quality for this price.
Construction
The fuselage requires the brass joiner and the
incidence tubes fitting; there are moulded
centre marks for these to indicate where to
drill the holes. I installed the tubes with 5minute epoxy having located them with cyano
first. I modified the wing incidence pegs by
replacing the wooden dowels supplied with
piano wire of a slightly larger diameter.
For the next step I then fitted the all-flying
tailplane crank and constructed the elevator
push rod using the components supplied, the
crank pivot holes required enlarging slightly
with wet & dry.
I installed the servo plate in the fuselage with
five minute epoxy having first made the servo
cut outs to fit Futaba 3101 mini servos. I then
fitted the rudderpost in to the fin. There are
components supplied to fit a rudder push rod,
but I have long since moved away from them
where I can. Consequently I decided to modify
the model to take a closed loop system. This
required a PCB horn making and some nylon
covered stainless steel trace wire. The model
comes with a slot cut for the push rod on one
side of the fuselage, so using this as a guide I
cut a matching one on the other side. Using
sufficient wire to reach from the servo to the
rudder and back in one piece, I fitted the
closed loop using brass crimp tubes at the
servo clevis connections and then through one
hole in the rudder horn. I then passed the
page 10
wire through the fin at the rear of the horn
via a small hole made with a pin back through
the other side of the horn and back down to
the servo via the fuselage slot and connected
via another brass crmp tube. I also hinged the
rudder with Mylar as opposed to the supplied
hinges. Once all this was installed I set the
rudder in the centre and fixed the wire
through the rudder with a drop of cyano. I
made a piano wire canopy closure; which allows
one-handed removal and fitting and the
fuselage work was complete. The tail plane fits
on the supplied wires through the bell crank,
all that has to be done is find the joiner tubes
under the film.
Assembling the wings was simple, there are
two servo boxes supplied these are trimmed to
size an outlet hole for the lead cut in them and
they are then epoxied in place. I extended the
leads to the servos (Hitec HS81MG) and pulled
them through the tubes with approximately 8"
of spare at the root. I made up the push rods
with a zed bend, using metal clevises, as these
are my preference for this function. Instead
of using the supplied servo shrouds, I made
small ply hatch covers covered in film and
taped in place. This was the construction
finished.
Flying
With 4 AA NiCds in the front together with
approximately 3 ounces of lead, I set the CG
at the stated position of 95 mm back from the
wing leading edge; this is nearly 50% of the
root chord so I was a bit wary at first. The
model then sat for three weeks waiting for
the first flight. Anyway on Friday 12th
October the opportunity to test fly the model
presented itself and so I carried out my preflight checks and prepared to launch off the
south slope at Callow Bank. I can’t remember
who launched it for me, but after an initial dip
the model rose away from the slope in the
gentle breeze. It prefers to fly quite quickly
and with a couple of notches of down flap soon
started to climb. Not quite on a par with the
only other model in the air at the time, an
Alpina 4001, but she acquitted herself well.
Loops were easy and the entry velocity did not
need to be too high. The model has quite a lot
of dihedral so axial rolls are not easy, in fact I
think more speed will be necessary for a
decent roll as the tendency is to barrel.
Eventually after approximately 15 mins in the
air the lift started to drop, so I attempted to
land and ended up making a down wind landing,
but no damage occurred.
the trailing edge, causing de-lamination of the
glass, gel coat and loosened the incidence tube.
The servo tray had also come adrift and the
canopy coaming split.
Repairs
The model has now been repaired, the cracks
were repositioned and then cyano poured in to
fix them in position. The incidence tube
reinstalled, the fuselage now has three extra
layers of glass cloth inside and three inches
either side of the break. The chips in the gel
The second flight took place the following
coat filled, the servo tray fitted and
Monday in the same location, it was slightly
reinforced with glass cloth, the hatch coaming
windier but the model performed well and I
has been reinforced with more cloth, as well as
was beginning to think that more aileron throw the area around the incidence tube. The gel
would help with the aerobatics. However, all
coat was sanded down and the seam removed,
would come to grief. As I had decided to
and courtesy of a friend at “Carlac”, I
depart, I walked back towards the road and
obtained a specially mixed match aerosol of
stood approximately 50 Yards from the fence. cub yellow paint that I have used to re-spray
I made three attempted landings, each ending the fuselage. The result is not as good as the
with the model going out in to lift. On the
original but at 20 ft in the air who will notice.
fourth attempt during the cross wind leg,
Final Comments
prior to my down wind leg, the model did not
So my comments are: on the whole a good
gain height but descended quickly and whilst
model so far, but the fuselage is a bit flimsy.
trying to turn into wind the wing tip made
contact with the ground and a ground loop (or It’s easy to build for any half competent
modeller. It initially took me a week of
cartwheel) was the result.
evenings. I would recommend strengthening
On arrival all looked well and the model
the fuselage with glass at the time of the
seemed relatively undamaged but on close
joiner and incidence tube installation. The
inspection the glass fuselage had proved too
instructions are a bit thin but if you have
flimsy. It had flexed at the point just behind
experience of
building a couple of
kits you will have no
trouble with this one.
And well, flying it is
easy and I am sure it
will be more fun; I
just await my next
opportunity now that
repairs have been
completed.
page 11
The Multiplex Alpina
The Alpina is the ideal model to review, since
there is so little building it leaves me free to
say what the glider is like to fly. Multiplex sell
this glider as a general purpose model and I
wouldn’t argue with that, but with a wingspan
of 4 meters it certainly has the makings of a
good thermal soarer. However, it’s a bit heavy
with a wing loading of around 20 oz/sq. ft and
flies rather fast in light winds but one can
lower the camber changing flaps and she slows
down rather nicely. In heavy winds she comes
in to her own, the loading coupled with the thin
wings makes her aerobatic enough for most
page 12
Lee Watts
people. All in all the model is a good all
rounder.
As I said earlier there is very little building
involved, the wings come in two halves of 2
meters each, good job really, because the
postman would have had a job getting it
through the letterbox. The only work needed
on the wings is to install the four servos
needed to control the ailerons and flaps. The
servo wells are already routed but they are
shallow at 11 mm deep and the correct choice
of servos is essential. The wing has no
airbrakes (on my version) so the ailerons and
flaps are used for crow braking. In my opinion
this method of braking is probably superior to
conventional airbrakes. The joiner tube is
preinstalled in the wing so there is no work
needed there.
noticeable when the model is flying.
The latest edition of this model is called the
Alpina 4001 and is available in two versions;
the master edition, which is completely
covered and has airbrakes pre-installed, at
around £400. It is also available uncovered
The rudder and elevator are high quality foam and without airbrakes for around £275. It’s
veneer and compliment the fuselage, which is a not a cheap model but as you would expect
superb glass epoxy moulding. There is a very
from Multiplex it is a quality product I find it
small seam line that runs along the top of the
a superb model to fly and would recommend it
fuselage. In truth it’s not very noticeable so I to anyone.
decided to leave it, it’s certainly not
page 13
Indoor (And other) Ruminations
Anyone reading the Calendar section of
current model magazines will have noticed an
increase in the number of indoor events
scheduled throughout the year. Some four
years ago, these indoor flying sessions were
usually limited to winter months, the
assumption being that free-flight competitors
would form a nucleus of indoor fliers. The
S.S.A was an exception, as for 5 years we have
held monthly indoor meetings with a limited
number of Free Flight contest fliers
participating.
Trevor Faulkner
principles of flight (and less demanding,
incidentally, on the pocket!).
It has been most gratifying to notice how our
increasing numbers of indoor fliers are
beginning to improve both their building and
flying skills. One of the first things
noticeable is that modellers become much
more selective in their choice of wood. Light
models fly more slowly and are easier to trim.
The most interesting flights are often the
slowest, a complete contrast to much R/C
flying (jet, pylon, pattern and F3B etc). Years
This positive change in favour of indoor events ago there was considerable interest in what
were known as “one model competitions”.
has come about through a number of reasons.
Contestants built models conforming to a
Recently, Foot & Mouth has had quite an
specific design and competed according to a
impact, many fliers suffering withdrawal
symptoms when denied their flying, but other set of rules. This has re-emerged in Free
Flight, with the annual “LULU” (glider) contest,
influences are being felt. A similar thing is
and the “Cloud Tramp” (indoors) postal event.
happening in Free Flight Scale contests
Such events emphasise trimming and flying
(outdoors). Many recruits are transferring
skills – almost like the old days (post war) of
from the ranks of R/C for various reasons.
500cc car racing, (JAP engines) and some
One is definitely the challenge of getting a
current motor events where drivers use
free-flying model to perform properly.
Another reason, of course, is the shortage of identical cars, and the best driver comes out
on top. The “one model” competition has had
flying sites and the waiting lists for
some success in the S.S.A, most notably “Delta
membership of some R/C clubs.
Dart”, “Gymminie Cricket”, and “School Hall
Over the years, model size has increased.
Hamster”. The latter has now become part of
During the war year’s (1939–45), the
the Northern Area indoor scene, with a Class
“Aeromodeller” carried many plans of 20”-36”
of its own. Simple models are definitely the
span models. 48” models were rare, and there
best for one-model competitions. They’re
were, therefore, plenty of models for juniors
cheap, quick to build and easy to “improve” by
to build which were both affordable and easy
to transport. Junior membership of clubs was building lighter. There is nothing so likely to
urge one to improve than to see someone else’s
high: aeromodelling was not seen as “an old
identical’ model out-performing one’s own! The
man’s game”, as a present.
challenge is skill, not chequebook based.
Then eventually, Radio Control arrived. At
To digress for a moment: as an impoverished
first, exciting and a challenge; eventually an
student, I joined a camera club to use the
almost guaranteed success activity with
darkroom facilities. On club nights, the usual
reliable equipment and designs – even R.T.F
topic of conversation was the latest
models. What is happening now is that more
(expensive) equipment flaunted by various
creative souls are finding it necessary to remore affluent members. Come the annual
introduce the challenge into their modelling
photo competitions, nothing gave me more
and are opting to do something which is more
pleasure than to beat these chaps with my Box
demanding on their understanding of the
page 14
Brownie fitted with an old spectacle lens
(attached with Elastoplast) for close-up still
life.
At present, I feel many modellers are far too
interested in what equipment they’ve bought,
rather than what they do with it. The S.S.A
had a significant group of “free thinkers” who
produced excellent R/C designs and made
them perform well. Sadly, only one or two
such chaps are around now and the lack of
interest in contests for Thermal and Slope RC
in 2001 is witness to their demise.
the lowest?
e. A recent (published) model design
featured a C.G at 160% of the chord from
the L.E. The fuselage was of normal
length. What sort of stabiliser was used?
f.
Why are chuck gliders often rigged at 0o 0o incidence (wing and tail)?
g.
Several indoor model designs feature
asymmetrical wings. Why?
h. How does the power output from an I.C
engine differ from that of a rubber
motor?
So, why the enthusiasm for indoor? Well, like
i. Rubber motors are often “stretch wound”,
models in the one-model competitions, simple
what is stretch winding? Why is it
models do some of the best flying. Add to
practised?
that, stable air-conditions with comfortable
temperatures, easy recovery, plenty of time to j. What is the lightest weight (lbs per cu ft)
fly, plenty of flying to watch, the opportunity
generally accepted as the lowest limit for
to “fly against oneself” i.e. comparing times
balsa?
from month to month and, in our case, free tea k. When is the next S.S.A indoor meeting?
and coffee! Our “Hamster” design is a proven
“Indoor flying” is capable of teaching the
performer, and does what real aircraft do;
elements of flight simply and effectively.
R.O.G and L.O.G, on its wheels.)
Alterations to trim can be assessed quickly
Economy is taken to the nth degree. Rubber is and at close quarters. Even adjustments that
sold at knockdown prices, an expensive cutter might prove to be in error (and could result in
and micrometer are available for fliers to use, major damage or write off to a more complex
so avoiding sending away for special sizes of
outdoor model) are seldom disastrous in the
rubber at considerable expense. Efficient
case of the lighter and simpler slow flying
props from yoghurt pot blades and cocktail
machines.
sticks are commonly used (even some scale
So, if you want to learn a bit more about small
models feature Y-P blades) and the minimum
aircraft very rapidly then why not give indoors
of wood and adhesives are required. Building
a chance? Visit the hall, be a spectator for an
time is drastically reduced. Not bad, is it?
hour….all for free, and make up your mind
….Especially for tight fisted Yorkshiremen!
whether or not you’re capable of accepting a
Just let me post a few questions to test your
challenge.
knowledge of simple aeronautical principles:
Ed. The meetings are held monthly in the
a. Does moving the C.G forward (and
Bradway Scout Centre, Bradway Drive,
trimming for best glide) increase or
Sheffield (off Prospect Road, Nr. Tinker’s
decrease flying speed?
Corner) . The fee is £2.50 per session. There
b. What does “Downthrust” do? Or for that is no charge made to Spectators and Juniors.
matter what is downthrust?
Free tea or coffee available throughout the
afternoon. It’s friendly, fascinating and fun.
c. Is “wash-in” like down aileron?
d. Given a conventional (i.e. anti-clockwise)
prop rotation, which wing will tend to be
page 15
Elektro-Lite Glider
In a previous issue of Gladys I
remarked about this John
Stevens model concluding that I
fancied it but I didn’t want the
hassle of building it. Well I
succumbed! I just couldn’t resist
it. My current electro-glider, an
Astro 400 was rather tatty
since I got it stuck up a tree at
Lodge Moor. I spent around
three hours shaking the tree,
throwing sticks at it, trying to
get it down (half killing myself in
the process) and I’ve never forgiven it! It
had been repaired after it’s ordeal and
still flew reasonably well, but I’m sure you
know the feeling, it had seen better days
and I fancied a change. I already have a
Pico Jet and a Twinstar which are great
flyers, but sometimes the short duration
of such models can be a bit of a pain and
an electro glider is much more relaxing.
Most of the flyers at Lodge Moore know
that a slight Northerly wind gives some
superb lift from the slope across the
road and a reasonable glider can be kept
aloft for long periods of time – just the
page 16
Mike Stott
thing for those warm summer evenings.
Building
I dug out my building board and set to
work. As you can see from the photo
there’s a lot of wood with this kit and you
have to take care with the bits because
lots of them look similar, but the quality
is superb; John clearly takes care with
the choice of wood. The CAD produced
plans (five of them) are a joy, and the
instructions give a detailed step-by-step
guide to the construction. As I started to
work I soon realised why I’m so reluctant
to build nowadays; it’s so tedious when
you’ve been used to
assembling ARTF models.
However, I plodded on
relentlessly. I started with
the tailplane, which was
finished fairly quickly and
looked fine; something was
happening to me, I quite
enjoyed building it. I decided
to build the fuselage next; I
wanted to get it out of the
way because I needed to make
some modifications. The plan
showed a Graupner Speedgear
system but I wanted to fit my
own speed 400 motor and
gearbox, which was totally
different to that shown on
the plan. My gearbox was
bought many years ago and I
suppose is somewhat dated by
today’s standards. It is an in
line “Intro” gearbox made of
titanium. It’s beautifully made
with a ratio of 1.8:1 and
served me well in my previous
electro glider. This meant
that I had to do a rethink of
the front end of the fuselage
but it wasn’t too difficult. The
only problem was that I had to glue the
motor in; which makes it a bit of a bugger
if I need to take it out at any time. I also
saw a snag with the battery compartment
– it looked very small! I don’t know what
batteries were drawn on the plan but they
didn’t look like any size that I use. I
wanted to utilise some of the cheap NiMH
ex phone batteries from Bardwell’s, these
are around 2/3 AA size. Considering I
needed to use seven of them I could see
that they were not going to fit. An easy
solution was to fit a slightly larger rear
former, this effectively widened the
fuselage at the correct position and thus
the batteries would fit reasonably easily.
From there on the fuselage
was a reasonably simple build
and didn’t take long.
The wing is a pretty
methodical job but you have to
follow the instructions
implicitly or you can forget
something. As an experiment I
decided to reduce the dihedral
from that shown on the plan
because I suspected it was a
little excessive. As I initially
suspected I found this aspect
of the building to be hard
going, although some of you
keen builders would love it. I
was glad when it was finally
page 17
finished and I could clear my building area
of the abundance of balsa dust that had
permeated every nook and cranny. I find it
important to make sure everything is clean
before I start to use covering film or else
I get fine dust all over the film because
of its static charge.
Covering
In order to keep some order in my life I
decided to keep the look of the ElektroLite similar to the Hi-Lite glider I
discussed a few issues ago. Consequently I
varnished the fuselage using around three
coats. Whilst talking about varnish I have
gone back to the traditional solvent based
stuff; I had a flirtation with water-based
varnish but in my opinion it’s nowhere near
as resilient. Whilst I’m not a great lover
of this type of finish it certainly is
robust, and doesn’t show all the knocks
and bumps the model gets during normal
use, although it does exhibit age cracking
after a while.
shopping around I eventually I found what
I wanted was not Solarfilm at all but
Profilm, which was a lovely bright purple
colour. However, I was in for a shock, the
price of Profilm is around double that of
Solarfilm…what the heck, it’s only money
(sob). I tried to emulate the colour
scheme of a lovely professionally finished
glider I had seen called “Highlight” which
was in clear purple and yellow. The final
covering on the Elektro-Lite looked just
what I wanted, not exactly a perfect
finish but not bad for my limited skills. In
For some time now I have admired the
retrospect I was glad I had spent that bit
clear film used on many of the ready-made more money on the Profilm.
models that are around nowadays, in
Unfortunately I had a similar problem to
particular I liked the bright purple colour.
the original Hi-Lite, in that the wing
On the Hi-Lite I wanted to use purple and
tended to pull out of shape when I shrunk
I purchased some Solarfilm but it wasn’t
the film. However, I managed to correct it
exactly the colour I wanted, I therefore
with much twisting and re shrinking,
wanted to get it right this time. After
although it was a bit awkward due to
the large size of the wing making
things difficult to manipulate. To be
truthful I’m not sure if it’s as it should
be but it looks ok and I put a bit of
washout at the tips just in case.
Finishing
I attached the rudder and elevator
with a simple Diamond Tape hinge and
made a couple of small horns for them
page 18
using ply. The servos fitted were the
basic micro size and fitted perfectly in
the fuselage.
model. If you like the construction aspect
of our hobby then this model is for you. I
actually enjoyed this part of the work
more than I envisaged I would. Whilst it’s
Having made up a 7.2 volt battery pack
not a difficult glider to make there are a
from the telephone batteries (as
mentioned previously) I gave the motor a lot of place to go astray, I certainly did.
At the nose I misread the plan and
run and all seemed well, except when I
approached full revs the speed controller unfortunately made the nose slightly
cut the power. I initially thought that the smaller than the spinner, others probably
prop I was using (10.5 / 5 “) was perhaps a wont notice, but I do. If it fly’s as well as
it has on its maiden flight I will be very
bit too big for the gear ratio and
satisfied and feel it will be a good
consequently was pulling too many amps
replacement for my old Astra 400.
for the controller. When I changed to a
smaller prop it functioned fine. I have
There is no doubt that John Stevens
seen this before and I find that the
knows how to produce a quality kit and
battery pack sometimes needs a little
this is no exception. My only dislike is that
running in, so I will experiment; when the it has a poxy name; a bit more imagination
pack has had a few charges I will try the
would have given something more
larger prop again. I cannot use too big a
appealing.
prop because the gearbox has only a 1.8:1 The Vital Statistics
ratio, whereas the larger props really
demand a gearbox with around 4:1 ratio.
The First Flight
I have only managed one short flight to
date at a field close to home and the
glider looks very promising but perhaps a
little under propped with the small prop I
was using. It certainly seemed very stable
and the turning efficiency had not been
affected by the reduction in dihedral I
had made. The field I flew in was rather
small and it didn’t give me the chance to
give it a proper work out. I’m now waiting
for some better weather (it’s January as I
write this) and I will give it some more
exhaustive testing at Lodge Moore.
However, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be
an excellent flyer.
Final Thoughts
Well, as I initially thought, it’s a builder’s
Wing Span
71”
Wing Area
3.5 ft
Weight
(Inc Battery)
24 oz
Wing Loading
7oz / sq ft
Section
MH 32
Gearbox
1.8:1 Intro
Prop
(Ultimate Size)
10.5 / 5”
Aeronaut
Speed
Controller
Kontronic Easy
(18A)
Battery
7.2 Volt NiMH
Kit Price
Approx £48
page 19
The DH 88 Comet
As some club members will know, my
winter building project has been a DH 88
Comet produced by Cloud Models and sold
through Galaxie Models at Ipswich.
I remember building an Airfix model of
the plane as a young teenager, and even
then was captivated by the elegance and
beauty of the design. Yet again, it proves
the adage “If it looks right, it flies
right.”
Phil Barrett
an elegant low wing twin, with two
specially developed Gypsy Six R engines
giving 230hp. With the very clean design,
and with careful attention to weight, the
Comet had a top speed of 237mph and a
range of 2,700 miles on full tanks.
In effect the aircraft was a flying fuel
tank, explaining the position of the
cockpit behind the trailing edge of the
wing to allow maximum fuel above the
wing centre section and therefore to
Background to the Original Design
minimise changes in the Cof G as the fuel
The history of the plane is fascinating. It
load reduced. Of the gross weight of
stemmed from an announcement by Sir
5,550lbs, some 2,500 lbs was contributed
MacPherson Robertson in 1933 that to
by the fuel load.
celebrate the Melbourne centenary there
would be an air race between London and The aircraft featured two revolutionary
Melbourne, with prize money of £15,000 features for De Havilland, retractable
and a cup. The incidental purpose was to undercarriage and variable pitch
propellers. The undercarriage was raised
encourage better air links between
and lowered manually, whilst the propeller
England and Australia.
pitch was altered by the effect of
Given the poor economic climate in the
airflow on a disk behind the propeller
early 1930`s, it initially appeared that
which changed the pitch the faster the
there would be little prospect of a new
aircraft flew.
British aircraft winning the race. De
Havilland took the brave decision to start The Race October 1934
design work on a contender, to be built if Although there were 64 entrants, only 21
sufficient interest was forthcoming, The actually arrived for the start, and only 9
planes achieved the full distance of
company received orders for an initial
three aircraft, with two further aircraft 11,400 miles to Melbourne.
being built later.
Although De Havilland projected a loss on
the project, it saw the air race as a way
of demonstrating new technology and as a
show case for the British aircraft
industry.
The Design
The two key criteria were going to be
speed and range. De Havilland designed
page 20
Of the three Comets entered, G – ACSS
(Grosvenor House) came first, crewed by
CWA Scott and T Campbell Black in a
time of 70 hours and 54 minutes. The
Comet of Cathcart Jones and Waller
came fourth, delayed by engine problems
on the final leg.
The race had been led by the third
Comet of the husband and wife team of
Jim and Amy Mollinson until they reached
India, when a disastrous failure to find
the appropriate grade of petrol meant
both engines suffered terminal damage
after being refuelled with vehicle quality
petrol from a local bus depot !
which is some 10 inch smaller in wingspan
and even then is only just adequately
powered. The target weight in the
instructions is 49 ounces on 7 cells,
compared with 33 ounces for my existing
twin.
The Importance of the Comet
I therefore decided to go for two
Graupner Speed 480`s on eight cells.
Motocalc predicted thrust of 19.6 oz
using 6x4 propellers, compared with 18.4
oz from the Speed 600 set up with an
8x4 propeller on my yellow sports model.
As the sports model weighs 49 oz on 8
cells, I knew I was on the right lines.
As well as proving a major morale boost
to the British aircraft industry by its
victory, the lessons learned from the
Comet were utilised in the design of the
Mosquito. There is a clear family
resemblance, with similar objectives of
high speed and long range.
The actual weight came out at 53 oz,
which is 2 oz overweight after allowing
The model has a 52 inch wingspan using
for the extra cell. I could have pared
foam cored wings and ABS plastic engine
some weight by leaving the two crewmen
nacelles and top fuselage decking. The kit
out, but I do hate to see an empty office!
suggests using seven cells and two 7.2v
The only other change I made to the
Speed 400 motors.
standard instructions related to the
I was not convinced by this set up, as I
nacelles. They are assembled from two
flew my own twin on this combination
The Model
page 21
Aermacchi 339 (EPP)
The Aermacchi 339 is a stylish EPP
Power Scale Soarer (PSS), designed
for the sports flyer looking for
something different. The Aermacchi
(which is an advanced jet trainer)
was one of the more successful
aircraft during the Falklands
conflict. It makes an ideal PSS
subject due to its 'model' size
proportions i.e. conventional wing
layout, its high tail (relative to the
wing), reasonable tail moment and
relatively slim fuselage. The model
was purchased from Phoenix Model
Products (PMP) and I’m delighted
with its performance.
The Aermacchi will fly in winds from
8 - 10 mph up to gales (with the aid
Mick Battison
of ballast). It will perform most
glider style aerobatics including
outside loops and rolls. It is
extremely simple to fly and is very
much a fun machine; the roll rate on
mine is enhanced by the use of
quality micro servos that I have
fitted in the wing.
Construction consists of an EPP wing
and fuselage with a Correx fin and
tailplane. Ply doublers and hardwood
spruce wing spars are used to
reinforce the structure and give it
the necessary rigidity to withstand
normal aerodynamic loads and the
'odd' arrival! Build time is relatively
short at especially if you are familiar
with building with EPP.
Wingspan (mm)
Controls
Weight (g)
Wing section
Price
1150
Aileron, Elevator
900
Modified Clark Y
£54
page 22
One Year On (March 3 Sunday)
Terry Gregory
On a point of order some of the people
flying were using odd number
frequencies, obviously converted power
flyers. The club does follow the BMFA
guidelines and only even frequencies
should be used on the slope. Also
members should note that BMFA or
other proof of insurance should be
It was to me very gratifying therefore to carried at all times as you may well be
asked for this before you are allowed to
see so many people and models flying on
fly at our sites. Avoid being disappointed.
Sunday afternoon. Not for a very long
It was nice to see Geof Bott out there
time have I enjoyed my afternoon so
flying, he is recovering from an argument
much. There was a preponderance of
flying wings mostly of the Blitz design, no between his bike and a car. Geof
unfortunately had to spend an afternoon
doubt brought about by the recent
membership of the designer and supplier in casualty and no doubt some time
of kits for this model, one Ron Broughton. resting up afterwards. But he is now back
with us.
Ron tells me that his Splitz design has
It seems incredible that it is over one
year since the outbreak of foot and
mouth closed off the countryside to
almost all of our flying. But inconvenient
that it has been to ourselves it has been
devastating to our farmers and to others
dependent on the country for they’re
living.
taken off (saleswise) and is doing very
Other noteworthy attendances were as
well. (The Splitz model is designed to fly follows: Peter Hitchborn, flying a very
in the EPP Pylon racing class, carry
nice Balsacraft
(which
required
Ok Brian, we have got the picture and have
edited it soSpitfire
how about
a nice
write
ballast and spilt into two for transport).
more
up? Mike
S nose weight). Dave Hutchinson, with
his electric model (minus prop). Carl
Vernals with various flying wings, Pibro/
Boot and an own design EPP wing. This is
based on the club project wings (Carl has
promised an article and design detail to
follow in Gladys). Tim Scowcroft flew his
own design ME163 also based on the club
EPP wings, and his Mustang P51. There
was a rare sighting of Andy Shaw with an
aerobatics machine and a scale model.
With some 15/18 pilots and 25/30 models Finally mention of ace scale modeller
on the slope this must rank as one of the Frank Abbott who rumour has it is
best days for some time and despite the contemplating joining the club in the near
future.
cold all seemed out to enjoy the flying
and the company of like minded
enthusiasts.
Members travel from far and wide to fly
with us. Many bringing with them large
and beautiful scale models of full size
gliders. Our site being particularly
suitable for these models since we have a
largely open and relatively flat area that
we can use for landing. Note, we must try
and beg/borrow a mower and go over the
landing area this year, any thoughts or
volunteers would be welcome.
page 23
page 24
Answers to Trevors Quiz
a. Decreases the flying speed.
b. Adjusts the thrust-line or “pulling force” of the propeller. This force can be adjusted in any direction;
down, up, left or right. The appropriate consideration for our example is down and right. Downthrust is
one way of applying a corrective force to the ‘plane to give the required flying characteristics. The
interaction of the CG with line of thrust can be visualised in simple terms as the aircraft pivoting (in
profile) at the CG. With the nose of the ‘plane being pulled in the direction of the thrust-line. If the
thrust-line passes above CG then we have a nose down moment. If the thrust-line passes below CG we
have a nose up moment.
c. No. “Wash-in” is the same airfoil at increased incidence. Down aileron alters the airfoil section. However,
some effects are the same in each case.
d. Port or left wing.
e. A very big one!
f. Because of the speed range. [Launch-speed very high, glide speed very low.] Greater decelage (incidence)
would give looping. [Chuck gliders are very sophisticated flying machines with simple basic construction.]
g. To keep the ‘big’ wing from dropping when circling to that side. [I.e. Port wing, Left-hand flight].
h. IC power output (un-throttled) is constant. Rubber power falls off rapidly immediately after launch, then
cruises, then diminishes quickly.
i. To increase the number of turns the motor will take.
j. 4 lbs. per cu. ft., known as ultra light.
A tutorial role for Trevor - Trevor advises one of the younger indoor flying
members, Johnathon, about dihedral. Taking a back seat is his “taxi” driver, mum.
Indoor Photo Shoot
Mike Bowles
Indoor Photo Shoot
Mike
Above; A “Wot Not” in miniture
Earnest Taylor’s pint sized model.
Right; Barry Barker? He get’s
“It’s a wind up” Trevor’s blue foam model
One of the precision tools
needed to produce or fine tune
the rubber power source.
page 25
SSA SURVEY
Gladys International 21C
We have had many nice remarks about the new format of Gladys but we would like
to keep it as fresh as possible. We are aware that we not covering the various
disciples as much as we would like, for instance we have very little copy from the
thermal or scale contingent (Phil Jackson has promised to redress this for us.)
However, we would like to hear your thoughts.
Your Name?
Are you satisfied with the present format of the Gladys magazine?
Is there anything you would like to add or change in its content?
Is there any thing you think would improve it?
Club Night
The club night is always difficult to arrange and often disappointing when few
people turn up. Please give us your frank opinions on the following:
The quality of the topics?
The suitability of the Norfolk Arms?
The frequency of meetings (are there too many)?
Is there anything we could do which would encourage you to attend?
Have you any other comments? (If you are impolite the worst that can happen is
that we wont talk to you.)
page 26
Clearout Sale.
Multiplex DG600 EVO.
New kit including four Multiplex FL BB servo’s.
£320.
Robbe BAE 146. new kit inc. 4 fans.
£130.
Robbe BAE 146 RTF.
Only requires speed controller and Rx.
£180.
Robbe Mad Max. New Kit.
Park Fly and Indoor Aerobat inc. Speed Controller.
£60.
Robbe Cessna 152. New Kit. Electric Powered.
£75.
Daves Aircraft Works Schweizer TG 3.
EPP trainer, New kit.
£45.
Free Scale Mad Dog RTF.
New kit with Permax 650 and servo’s fitted.
£125.
Free Scale SlowGo RTF.
New kit with servo’s, speed controller, geared 280,
Rx and NiCad fitted.
£150.
Free Scale Eligo. 2 Ch glider, new kit.
£50.
Zorro Flying Wing. Have a look at this one!
£90.
Blue Airlines Zaccu/Window.
4 options in one, brand new. Includes Kontronic Fun 400-36
brushless motor and Smile 30-6-12 speed controller.
£250
Phone Martin Middleton on, 0114 2811550 or 0114 2751371.
Wanted
An ASW 27. Ideally completed and ready to fly.
Will consider part completed or in kit form.
Tel. Gordon Smeeton 0114 2363447.
page 27
page 28