The Nieuport 17 shows its nimble full-scale heritage indoors (above left) by making tight turns in a small gymnasium setting. The Tiger Moth(above right) cruises by an upstairs balcony of the gym used for test flying as well as monthly
both indoors and out, over a period of a week.
For the new owner, flights need to start with the rudder and elevator in neutral (no down, up, right or left in either of the two control surfaces). Launching can be done by a level toss into the air with the motor at about half throttle, or rise-off-ground (or floor) by starting with the motor shut off and gradually increasing the speed of the motor while feeding in a bit of rudder to correct any turning tendencies.
After flying both planes within a com- pressed time frame, I could see very little difference in the performance of either, at least indoors. It did seem that the Nieuport 17 was a bit more agile in the turns than was the Tiger Moth, but that might simply have been my expectation, given the reputa- tion of the full-size WWI fighter compared to a legendary trainer. Fortunately, the little Flyzone Nieuport did not show a propensity for shedding its bottom wing at high speed as did its full-size counterpart after it was fitted with a larger engine in late 1916 or thereabouts!
club indoor flying. Outdoors, the Moth handles light winds very well and is realistic in flight. While limited in aerobatic capabilities with just rudder and elevator control, the plane can be coaxed into a loop by diving slightly first.
Both planes flew about the same indoors; however, the Tiger Moth was a bit more sta- ble outdoors in a light breeze. Also, it was a bit easier to land without tipping over, and didn’t seem to care if it landed with power on or off. The Nieuport, on the other hand, with its very short nose moment, landed best for me outdoors with some power on at touch down followed by an immediate power shut- off and up elevator to keep it from nosing over. Indoors, it made no difference and could be made to flair nicely with some up elevator on landing.
There are many things to like about tak- ing multi-wing semi-scale planes out of a box with no effort and flying them success- fully. Most of the things about both planes I found to my liking; however, I did not and do not like the soft plastic hubs intended to hold the wheels on the carbon fiber axles. They simply will not stay on for me with these two planes, nor did they stay on with the aforementioned Albatros or the S.E.5a, even with a drop of CA as a persuader on each hub. It may well be that my liking for long scale-like take-off rolls is the culprit,
but I spent too much time in a futile search of a gym floor for the tiny errant hubs to de- velop much of an affinity for them. While the very nature of a multi-wing air- plane makes it more susceptible to damage than a high wing monoplane, both planes have stood up well with multiple flights in- doors and out. I’m not sure either plane would be a good choice as a first airplane for a novice flyer, but either or both would be excellent choices with a unique historical flavor for someone who has successfully flown before. Two Flyzone planes that would make good first airplanes are the Playmate Micro and the Super Cub Micro, both of which are excellent and durable flyers on the way to a multi-wing ship. Both the Tiger Moth and the Nieuport 17 were a delight to review—particularly at the same time. Flyzone has once again offered two unique and good-flying micro ships to the modeling public. The opportunity to se- lect the radio components included is also a nice touch that hopefully will continue as the line expands and the company continues its leadership in the world of micro flying.
Take-offs are straight into the breeze (above) with just a touch of right rudder correction for torque. Since both planes’ flying surfaces are painted on the top surface only, outdoors the wings turn translucent and create a pleasing effect when
overhead.The Nieuport 17 handles light winds well (above, at right), also. Its smaller flying surface area does not make it any less stable, but it does appear to be a bit more agile than the Moth (at right), although that could be attributed to the control setup employed.
FLYING MODELS 51
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68