Welcome to our new 1/2 A forum!

[jbourke]

We need a forum description so please post here if you have any ideas.

Jim

[steelhead]

How about...


Discussion on aircraft and engines sized .07 and under and other small plane projects


Dean@steelheadproducts.com

[Mattfly]

Hi

.09 or .10 and under i think would be good too.

Matt

[Bubbafly]

As I have experienced it, the gamut of 1/2A planes is pretty wide. I think it would be resonable to limit engine size to .09 and under. The size of the planes will be a function of those engine sizes by necessity.

Bubbafly

[Dave Campbell]

Over on RCU, the format is for SMALL type powerplants, up to .15 size. This works well as it allows for larger 'cute' type glow planes that otherwise wouldn't have home forum to help with their building challenges. .10 size airplanes and to a lesser degree, .15 size airplanes need special consideration when building to get the nest performance from them. This type of construction is standard fare for 1/2A flyers, the hints and tips are valuable to the larger SMALL flyer.

I'm a BIG 1/2A nut, I wish I had the time to spend pursuing again-I've just got too many irons in the fire to do it 'right' at the moment.

Dave

[Bud Morrison]

Thanks for the input from those who have posted their suggestions so far. Keep the description ideas and suggestions coming.

Welcome to the new 1/2a forum


Bud Morrison
Moderator 1/2a Planes forum

[PROACE]

I would like to suggest .15 and under. I prefer less than fifteen but then again for example my HOB T6 is a .15 size but the airframe isn't much bigger than some .049 airframes I have had in the past. I also believe there is an e-mail based group that limits 1/2A to .15, hey maybe we can attract those people to this forum.
Later,
Ace

[jbourke]

Bud, pm me with the text you think will work best, considering the options giving here, and I'll take care of the rest!

Jim

[T. Lyttle]

Finally! I have a great affinity for 1/2A, but here in the boonies Cox fuel is impossible to get for my 049s. I have since gone over to diesels, using PAW 030,049, and 09 engines: the 030 pulls like a Black Widow, and the 049 has amazing power. I have a few models, notably a Mini Zilch c/l with the 030, and a 7' (!) Stinson Model U on 3 049 PAWs, and others. Small engines make little noise, the diesels far less, and cost way less to run. 1/2A forever!

[frank l jr]

hey guys,
by old defination 1/2 A = .049 = time for a change= how about .15= this gives a great latitude for designs and methods. many planes are a real chalange at .049, a little more power can be the answer. just my 2 cents worth.
frank


see ya:D :p

[Bud Morrison]

We have determined that the 1/2a forum will encompass discussion related to planes that use 2 stroke power plants of .15 and under and will include all fuels (glow, diesel, gas ) as well as the small 4 strokes that power the same size planes and other hobby discussion related to the above. The forum description does now reflect this.

[frank l jr]

sounds like a deal to me. good wording.covers it well! thanks frank

see ya

[Bud Shupe]

Correct me if I'm wrong. 1/2 A is about the same as 400 class electric. Right?

[PROACE]

I have heard that and associated the fuel and electric that way in the past but I am a nitro guy so my opinion is marginal at best.

[Bubbafly]

Doink,

I have associated the 400 size planes with 1/2A certainly. Some 400 size planes are a little bigger and heavier than 1/2A and vice versa, but generally they are the same. IMO. There is a lot of conversion to gas/electric between those two classes of planes. Maybe you have some good ideas to share on this forum? Hint, Hint.

Bubbafly

[PROACE]

Hey guys,
I would like some opinions about covering with tissue or monocote. I am building a Top Dawg and was considering tissue and dope since I haven't tried it before and thought it could befun or painful.

[Tony Oliver]

Tissue is very light but fragile - easily cut, nicked and will go brittle over time. It needs some new modelling skills and techniques but none are difficult to acquire. It is almost the oldest covering material but its use depends on your modelling habits. If you are used to the rough and tiumble of putting a model in the back of the car with all the other stuff then you need to consider some more careful treatment of the model if tissue covered. It adds strength and rigidity to structures and helps harden the wood to which it adheres. It allows wide scope for decoration and you can print on it using a computer printer.Fuel proofer is needed if using glow. The smell of dope is addictive - you can live without it, and your wife will probably insist you do - but it's lovely!

Monokote or any other plastic is boring and less time consuming and heavier, but more practical. It doesn't add much to the overall strength, but has the extra advantage that when you crash the model it's already in a plastic bag to take home the bits.

Guess which I prefer.


Tony

[steve lewin]

I'd say Monocote in particular is too heavy for most 1/2A models but I have no idea what a Top Dawg is so it might be OK for that. There are some lighter films which are usually better but they still look too shiny and plasticky for my taste. If you like that look then try Ultracote Lite which is around half the weight of Monocote IIRC.

I used to use a lot of "real" tissue and dope but I'm lazier now and I like Litespan (or Airspan) which are put on like a film but are a lot lighter and look more like tissue. They're quite a bit tougher than tissue though not as tough as a heavyweight film like Monocote. I don't know how easy they are to get in your part of the world

OTOH if you've never tried tissue and dope you should try it at least once in a modelling lifetime. Dope, balsa cement and diesel fuel are the aromas of my youth. There are some definite knacks to getting it done without the shrinking dope warping a lightweight structure into unexpected and exciting shapes ;).

Steve

[PROACE]

OK. I think i'll try the tissue and dope. So how about a quick lesson in a paragraph or two. I am sure there is someone else lurking these forums whom haven't tried it either.

[Bud Morrison]

May I suggest you start a thread in the 1/2a planes forum pertaining to tissue covering techniques. I know many have different methods and I think you will get more feedback if the subject has its own thread.

[PROACE]

OK, the sneaky moderator dude is on to me now. So gents please redirect your input to the new thread I started for the tissue covering. Thanks and all your help is greatly appreciated.
Ace

[PROACE]

I just wanted to say congratulations to the powers envolved in starting this 1/2A forum. Awsome job and THANK YOU!

[Bud Morrison]

The 1/2a forum would just be some text on a screen if it wasnt for you guys. Its the users that make a forum GREAT. So Thanks to all of You!

[goldguy]

Taking into consideration that 1/2A is an engine with a displacement of .0511 or under, I feel the name of the form should reflect the interest in small models, as in the SMALL movement, the "SMALL MODEL AIRPLANE LOVERS LEAGUE" which was started in England and promoted in North America by modelers like Randy Randolph and others. Even his column in Flying Models is titled "SMALL TALK". This encludes engines up to .25 for two strokes and 26 for four strokers. With the apparent demise of the SMALL web site, this would be a chance to carry on promoting that interest. If you are aware, to be a member of the "league", you had to take a silent oath to build small models, fly non-competative and have fun. Just my Canadian 2 cents worth, which is about 9 bucks American!

fly SMALL, have a BALL

Frank Weaver

[Dave Campbell]

I like the SMALL concept, but following it to the letter is not a happy situation for all those involved. The powers that be behind SMALL are not friendly to high perfomance airplanes, period. The SMALL concept as was imposed upon me by Joe Wagner is for "unintimidating" motors and airplanes.

Ok, I understand that a lot of the designs and motors used in SMALL flying were around in the '70's when you were hard pressed to get good perfomance from what was available. But, *MY* idea of schoolyard flying is a HOT 1/2A in a ail/elev/pylon racer type airplane. I came into RC at a time when things were getting a lot smaller and faster. I haven't been forced to fly rudder/elevator floaters as they were in the infancy of SMALL flying. My idea of schoolyard flying is different than theirs, and unfortunately not welcome.

Calling this the 1/2A forum is fine by me.

Dave

[goldguy]

Dave: You are correct on the SMALL movement not promoting high preformance and I also like the "go fast" screaming small models, glow, diesel or electric. I also enjoy fun fly contests and pylon racing, which also doesn't fit with in the SMALL movements thinking. So, now that I have made my true interests known, I guess I'll be getting the boot from SMALL and have to take back my "oath". Oh well, I have my own credo.......fly SMALL, have a BALL (small.... as in the size of airplanes)

[Chuck]

Jim,
This is a GREAT idea. I'm an E-flyer and I know that a lot of building technique and info is common between the 400 to 600 class E planes and 1/2 A. Plus this may give us some good ideas on conversions to E power as we read about performance charasterics with IC engines. I'll be a regular lurker here, you bet'cha.;) :p


Chuck

[sturmvogel]

The earlier SMALL group that put together the annual get together in Maumelle considered any plane under .26 OK, but I'll go with whatever the majority want. I've airplanes up through .46 but I have to say that the small machines interest me most...
Bob Peterson