Originally Posted by Warren B

Hi JMP, I have one of those 0.9 Microns. Lovely little diesel, just like a French Mills. The purchase receit from a Paris model shop says 1958 I think.
Only trouble is the tank only lasts about 1 minute. I'll turn up a larger ali one some time.
I have in mind a little RC Pinnochio (original used the earlier 0.8 Micron). Should be a good little local park flyer when I get the time.

Uh, Oh!
Somebody is building a Pinocchio
Warren, how about a common build thread?
I have this idea of keeping the removable motor mount and adapt various engines to this model, just to give them some air time.
Candidate list:
- Micron-Météore 0,9cc
- Indian Mills 0.75
- Irvine Mills 0.75
- Pfeffer 0.6cc
- MP Letmo 0,6 cc
- DC Dart
- PAW 0.5cc
I also intend to control turn via a rudder in the sub-rudder (roughly half of it). I hope it will be enough. As for elevation, I'll control the incidence of the upper wing. It is easy to do with a vertical pushrod near the trailing edge and should work.
In this manner, the removable tailplane assembly can be kept without any hassle and weight kept in check.

Hey, I always wanted a plan of that! I heard they were a bit of a pain to trim? Any ideas where I can find the plan?
I have a Drone BB Gold head. It runs very well but takes an age to warm up.Its also surprisingly economic!?
Thanks
Simon

JPM please can you tell me the plan number ie PET123 in the bottom left corner-can't quite make it out.
Thanks
Simon

Originally Posted by Snorks

JPM please can you tell me the plan number ie PET123 in the bottom left corner-can't quite make it out.
Thanks
Simon

Sorry, I can't read it either. Let me explain:
My original plan, which was an insert in "Le Modèle Réduit d'Avion" (M.R.A. in short) is currently in storage.
I just copied the attachment from Warren B's post #130 on page 9 of this thread and enlarged it to full-size with the very useful "Tileprint" software from Blackflight Models:
http://www.blackflight.com/tileprint/
It printed as 9 sheets which I had to glue together.
The reference dimension I used for enlargement is the length from front of firewall to back of rear post, which I take as being 19.7 inches (500 mm).
The resolution from the attached drawing is too low for the PET number to be legible, but enough for making a working drawing for building.
I guess Warren B can tell you.

Thanks! I revived an old thread over on the free flight forum. Much appreciated
Simon

The Pinocchio plan is still available here there's also a X2 plan for rc using up to a 20 four stroke.
The first was published in Jan '50 AM as well as the 1949 AM annual, the rc version appeared in March '88 Radio Modeller.

Hi All,
Looks like some justified enthusiasm for the little Pinocchio.
It's on my build list, but not at the top yet.
I can "loan" a good scan from the 1949 Aeromodeller annual, (private use only of course) to anyone who needs one.
The x2 plan was apparently disowned by the NZ author , I recall he said the wing incidences were all wrong, it's in a past "Sticks & Tissue" (they are all on the CMAC downloads page).
JMP's idea of variable incidence top wing may answer that question (or pose a few more) can't wait for more photo's - maybe it will have to go up the list!
Several enlarged versions have appeared in magazines over the years, I particularly liked the 36" version for ED Comp.
Currently building a Mamselle for 3 channel using a VERY nice Schlosser 0.5 RC.

Originally Posted by Warren B

The x2 plan was apparently disowned by the NZ author , I recall he said the wing incidences were all wrong, it's in a past "Sticks & Tissue" (they are all on the CMAC downloads page).

The remarks you refer to are on page 3 of issue #06 of "Sticks and Tissue"
http://cmac.synthasite.com/links-downloads.php (Bottom of page)
On the AM plans, I measure the top wing at +1,5°, the lower wing at +2,5° and the tailplane at +0,5°.
It all looks good enough for a start.
I estimate the balance point at 50~55% of the upper wing chord (= 35~40% of effective wing area).
I've done the rudder. Only tricky part is the curved root rib. I made a 1/4" balsa mold to the shape of stabilizer rib, then made two 1/32" root rib laminates which I wetted and rolled under the X-Acto knife handle to help bend them, then glued them together with wood glue and pinned them onto the mold. I'll let this dry overnight and hope it doesn't spring back.

Hi JMP,
Sounds perfectly reasonable incidences to me, although I think it is usual to have slightly higher incidence on the top wing than the bottom.
The theory goes that if the higher incidence top wing stalls first, then the centre of lift moves back, the nose pitches down and everthing has a happy ending.
If the lower wing stalls first all the opposites occur.
I wonder if it's the reverse for backward stagger?
Of course with a light loading little thing like the Pinocchio, we shouldn't be having any wing near stall anyway.
With everything at +ve incidence, it's just like a bit of extra downthrust - always a safe thing to have.

I've always set my several biplanes up with more incidence on the top wing.
Works for me that way.

The pictures are great. I didn’t know that a lot of these diesel engines ever existed.
A lot of us older generation types are just reminiscing and day dreaming, which is not a bad thing.
Are there any young modelers out there? If so, do you like the hobby and plan on staying with it? Only you can answer that. You’ve seen the past posts of engines that are no longer available.
Now’s the time to collect a few present day specimens and put them away, or use them and keep them. In 25, 30, 40, 50 years, you may have your own wonderful collection of “old engines”. Get them now, or tomorrow they may not be available.
A modern present day example of an affordable, well made, little diesel is the .03 cubin or 0.5 cc PAW. It is shown next to the Cox .09 for size comparison.

I think I gave you 8 x 4 RPM figures for the TD 09, not realizing you had a Medallion. For the medallion 09, figures for an 8 x 4 on regular Cox fuel (15%?) range from 10,300 to 11, 200. You should be able to get better than 9000 with the diesel head.

Originally Posted by gossie

I've always set my several biplanes up with more incidence on the top wing.
Works for me that way.

I am not worried about stalling the lower wing first for two reasons:
a) - the lower wing has lower aspect ratio, hence will stall later (http://worldofaerospace.googlepages....A-RC-plane.htm)
b) - when I'll give up on the elevator stick, the upper wing angle of attack will be increased, also making sure that if stall there is, it will be the upper wing first.
We'll see...

Hi All,
Don't like to see this excellent subject go quiet, so I'll kick off again with the Mills Brothers.
All the usual suspects are there (except I'm still on the lookout for a 0.75 MkI and a 1.3 MkI series1).
The two visitors from the sub-continent are a 5cc sideport which weighs half a ton, and a bored out 2.4 now 3.46 both RC.
There's also an Irvine 75 doing service in a Cardinal at the moment.

Next to fly will be the 2.4 and/or 3.46.
Don't know why they are so maligned.
True they are not exactly screamers, so useless for fast flying or C/L, but chugging away at vintage speeds on a 10 or 11" prop they are really nice. The 3.46 is still running in, but it throttles quite well and even has a midrange. It differs from the 2.4 in having no sub-piton induction so this probably explains the good throttling.

Nice collection Warren! How do you tell the difference between a 1.3 Mk1 Series 1 and series 2? Do you ever get up to the Muswellbrook Vets meeting?