| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 59.1 | Marks Models - quality? | TALLIS::FISHER | Kay R. Fisher | Fri Feb 20 1987 08:39 | 15 |
| Is this the more expensive Marks P51 with the foam sheeted wings?
I built the fun scald P51 and have seen a couple of other inexpensive
Marks models completed. I thought the instructions with my fun scale
were awful. I was hoping that the more expensive models were better.
The plane flew terrible. It did not survive minor incidences. The
strength of the nose section was weak. All in all it was not FUN.
Please keep us posted with your results and satisfaction with Marks.
_!_
Bye ----O----
Kay R. Fisher / \
==============================================================
|
| 59.2 | quality?- I dont know yet | ROCKET::ONEILL | | Tue Feb 24 1987 06:44 | 9 |
| the model in question is the fun scale kit (60 size). Witch kit
are you refering to? The only report I have heard of delt with
the fourty size model witch was said to have flown well until a
tail section defect (builder error ?) caused the elevator to depart
company. Some complaints I have with the kit include poor wood,
vage instructions, parts under sized, parts OVER SIZED, just to
name a few. Im about to build the fusealage (tried once, failed
half way through due to warped wood) again and will come back with
more comments as they arise, good or bad
|
| 59.3 | mark should get life | TALLIS::LADD | | Tue Feb 24 1987 17:50 | 10 |
| i watched kay's 40 sized p51 thru construction and flew it
several times. to date i have to say it is the most unimpressive
plane i have ever seen. its worst trait was its inability to take
any punishment. the whole front of the fuse was just not strong
enough, and not for a lack of epoxy. in the air, yuk. snap rolls
without trying...
i too was interested in some of the bigger marks models, who else
makes a relatively cheap hellcat?
kevin ladd
|
| 59.5 | GOOD VS. EVIL | AISVAX::JONEILL | | Mon Jun 06 1988 09:14 | 10 |
| WELL, I'TS DONE. I FINALLY FLEW THE BEAST LAST THURSDAY AND BARRING
A BAD PULL TO THE LEFT DURRING TAXI (LEFT GEAR TOED OUT) I HAVE
NO FURTHER COMPLAINTS (READ THAT YET) ABOUT THE PLANE. I'M NOT SURE
WHY KAY'S PLANE ACTED THE WAY IT DID BUT MINE SEEM'S FINE. MAYBE
THE SMALLER VERTION HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. THE PLANE TRACKS
LIKE AN ARROW AND IS REAL SOLID IN THE AIR. IT'S BUILT REAL LIGHT
AND THE SUPER TIGER 61... IT'S LIKE THE PLANE IS ALL ENGINE. I MUST
ADMIT, I HATED THE KIT BUT AFTER SEEING THE END RESULT, I'M SURE
GLAD I STUCK WITH IT.
JIM
|
| 59.6 | GOTTA ASK ! | KYOA::EVANKO | | Mon Jun 01 1992 17:58 | 15 |
| I realize that this note is somewhat old, but I have to ask.
I recently returned to RC after several years off, and going through
my "STUFF", I came across the 60 size Mark's fun scale Mustang I bought
years (6 or 7) ago.
After reading about what people have said at the beginning of this
note about this kit, I'm still interested in building it. But, I would
like to know what recommedations someone can give as far as improving
the strength of the nose section of the fuselage or any other
modifications that need to or should be made to it.
Any suggestions ?
|
| 59.7 | .60 size is bigger - and stronger! | KAY::FISHER | The higher, the fewer | Tue Jun 02 1992 14:47 | 18 |
| > After reading about what people have said at the beginning of this
>note about this kit, I'm still interested in building it. But, I would
>like to know what recommedations someone can give as far as improving
>the strength of the nose section of the fuselage or any other
>modifications that need to or should be made to it.
My negative comments about the nose strength were only about the
.40 size. I have know reason to believe the .60 size has any
problems in this area. Probably one of the better buys around.
Drop some notes in as you make progress on it.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
|
| 59.8 | JUST THINKING FOR NOW | KYOA::EVANKO | | Thu Jun 04 1992 14:03 | 24 |
| My intentions with this kit will be to modify it in several areas,
but not in the near future. I'm still deciding on what/how and
possibly "WHY" I want to make some of the modifications.
I have always built kits per the instructions, and felt that it was
about time to deviate and try something new. Modifications I am
thinking about are;
1. Retracts. (Have questions on wing support structure)
2. Flaps.
3. Sheet the entire airframe.
4. Glass and resin/epoxy.
5. Paint.
Ambitious ? Maybe. Possible ? Yes, unless someone can enlighten me
as to why some/all of these things should not be done. My process at
this time is to "GATHER" all the information that I can on some of these
mod's and then decide what I want to do. The only thing that I have done to
the kit so far was to copy the plans.
The airframe seems to be capable of handling these modifications,
but when I do question something, this conference helps tremendously, but I
still have questions that will be asked in a later/appropriate topic.
|
| 59.9 | What about your AMA magazine? | KAY::FISHER | The higher, the fewer | Fri Jun 05 1992 09:58 | 17 |
| > <<< Note 59.8 by KYOA::EVANKO >>>
> -< JUST THINKING FOR NOW >-
>
> My intentions with this kit will be to modify it in several areas,
>but not in the near future. I'm still deciding on what/how and
>possibly "WHY" I want to make some of the modifications.
In this months (Jul-1992 (for sure)) and last months (I believe?) Model Aviation
there are extensive details of modifications that Jeff Troy is doing
to his Dynaflite P-51 kit. This months article starts on Page 52 but P-51
details don't start till much later in the article.
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
|
| 59.10 | STILL THINKING ! | KYOA::EVANKO | | Mon Jun 08 1992 14:09 | 47 |
| I have been following the article from the beginning, and that is
what has sparked my interest in making the modifications. I felt that
if this modifications can be made to a .40 size plane, the .60 size
should have no problem, including retracts.
Was looking over the plans this weekend and making notes of the
changes that will be necessary to the airframe. So far the only radical
change to the fuselage will be to substitute a 1/4 plywood firewall
to accept a one piece motor mount. I plan to do away with the maple
motor mounts supplied with the kit, but will have to see if this takes
away from the strength of the nose section.
Other modifications to the fuselage are;
1. Move tailwheel to proper location.
2. Strip plank/sheet fuselage top.
3. Install hard mounts for wings.
Modifications to the wings will require a little more thought regarding
the installation of retracts, flaps, and aileron control hardware.
Retracts - First and foremost, because of the grass field, and the
size/weight of the plane, I feel that 3/16ths" struts are
the only viable solution. Have to consider the height of
the units and associated mounting structure to ensure that
they will fit within the wings. Also will have to use
2.5" wheels instead of 3.0", larger wheels will not fit
in between ribs without cutting into spar. (Yikes !)
Recently looked at some Spring Air units, and they will fit
but will be tight. Need to check Rohm's and get the height
of the units before I decide. Anyone have a set of Rohm's
that could give me the height measurement ?
Flaps - Will drive these from the original aileron location. Question
on this, can/should the servo be moved to either side of the
root rib ? The reason that I ask is since only one arm of the
servo will be driving the flaps, centering (Or as close to) of
the servo travel via forked linkage, differential will be kept
to a minimum and this makes more sense. If not, any other idea's ?
Ailerons - Haven't decided on whether I want pushrod linkage or wing
mounted servo's. Anyone have any tips pro/con ?
More issues later
|
| 59.11 | Retracts and grass don't mix | KAY::FISHER | The higher, the fewer | Mon Jun 08 1992 16:18 | 15 |
| >Retracts - First and foremost, because of the grass field, and the
> size/weight of the plane, I feel that 3/16ths" struts are
> the only viable solution. Have to consider the height of
Hmmmmm - can't say that I've ever seen anyone successful at retracts
on grass. Prepare yourself for having them ripped out on every third
landing. It can be done - but it will take the fun out of fun flys.
Hope your flying off the grass green at the local golf club :-)
Bye --+--
Kay R. Fisher |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
|
| 59.12 | | SA1794::TENEROWICZT | | Tue Jun 09 1992 07:37 | 15 |
|
Kay...
I assume this kit was designed for fixed gear. Probably using
landing gear blocks. They are typically set-up to bare the load
over four ribs. I'd suggest that you add good 1/16 - 1/8" plywood
doublers to each rib that will be supporting the load of the retract
mounts. This done they shouldn't have any more likelyhood of tearing
out than the stock set-up.
You may want to add some 1/32 plywood doublers to the ribs that are
cut out to form the wheelwell. Also sheet the wheelwell and strut
areas with balsa or 1/32 plywood.
Tom
|
| 59.13 | STILL THINKING | PCOJCT::EVANKO | | Tue Jun 09 1992 14:28 | 59 |
| Regarding -.01
<<< APACHE::N25480$DKA100:[JEFF.NOTES$LIBRARY]RC.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Welcome To The Radio Control Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 59.12 MARKS/JEMCO KITS 12 of 12
SA1794::TENEROWICZT 15 lines 9-JUN-1992 06:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kay...
> I assume this kit was designed for fixed gear. Probably using
> landing gear blocks. They are typically set-up to bare the load
> over four ribs.
Yes it was, right, and right.
> I'd suggest that you add good 1/16 - 1/8" plywood doublers to each
> rib that will be supporting the load of the retract mounts. This
> done they shouldn't have any more likelihood of tearing out than
> the stock set-up.
I was thinking about doing that also. The quality of the balsa
supplied for the ribs that will be bearing the load on the fixed gear
landing blocks leaves something to be desired. The wood is soft and
spongy. Looks like I will need to replace these anyway. Die cutting
for these ribs is also very poor, looks like they had verim chewing
them out at the factory.
I was also toying with the ides of replacing the two ribs that will
be bearing the load (mounting plate) with appropriate thickness
plywood to transfer/displace/disperse the stress. Don't like the idea
of balsa ribs as part of this support structure.
Good/bad idea ?
> You may want to add some 1/32 plywood doublers to the ribs that are
> cut out to form the wheelwell.
You betcha'.
> Also sheet the wheelwell and strut areas with balsa or 1/32 plywood.
I take it you are referring to the bottom sheeting of the wing, if so,
I plan to sheet the entire wing and glass.
I have read and reread the entire "RETRACT" topic, but really didn't
find much in the way people are installing retracts. What I would have
liked to have seen was examples of how people installed their retracts
(support structure) and the pro's and con's of stated process.
What would have also been valuable information was to the kind of
surface they were flying off of, how their systems heldup, what
failed (If it did), what caused them to fail, what could be done to
improve it's integrity (If possible), and whether they would do it
again.
Guess I know where to put these questions, huh !
|
| 59.14 | | SA1794::TENEROWICZT | | Tue Jun 09 1992 15:10 | 15 |
|
The best structure I've see in a wood wing is to use two 3/8" square
rails to support the retract. these rails run threw at least four
plywood reenforced ribs.
"sheeting the wheelwells" I ment the open area within the wing. Kind
of like making a tube that the wheel sits in that connects the top and
bottom wing sheeting. The wheelwell area is usually the weakest area
and is usually in the area that sees the flight loads. Added top and
bottom spare within this area will also help transfer the flight loads
outward onto the wing.
Tom
|