Jump to content
John H

Original Sean Bannister Algebra VIII

Recommended Posts

pete beadle

Hi all

John Hall made the fuselages "way back when" Is Clive John's son? as I understand John's son is the contact for John Hall's work, or is it the other way round(?)

I was going to suggest contacting John/Clive but didn't do so until I knew for sure who to contact

My old mate, who I mentioned in an earlier post, will be visiting me tomorrow and bringing his Algebra 8 fuselage with him so I can check dimensions, but I still think if we can contact John/Clive you should be able to source a "new" fuselage there, and that'll save all the faffing about with making a lost foam plug, or any other method of making copy fuselages. Surely that is a better way of going about it.......using an original?

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
heli_bee

I remember being lucky enough to spend a day back in the 90's with John Hall, in his workshop in Weston-Super-Mare. I learned a lot about laying up fibreglass fuselages.

If an original fuselage is available I will be interested. 

Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

I thought it might be a good idea to update everyone with the info/plans and pics I have, that may be of help to the contributors to this topic

I still believe the best route for people interested in building/assembling an Algebra 8 is via John (or Clive) Hall and, as I said before, obtaining a fuselage rather than making a copy of the original but, the choice will be yours from now on. I also think, interested parties should consider a "group build," rather than having several people all going their own different ways, without first establishing what the final goal will be....

Firstly. there are TWO plans in circulation, see pics of copies below, both dating from (around)1979 one redrawn and published in RCM&E(?) and the other, Sean's original, drawn from his own plans. Both were scaled down plans, one on A4 the other on A5

I also attach a couple of pics of Pete Hemsworth's fuselage and "T" tail for reference

I gave all my paperwork/copies etc to PeteH to build his "8" and he is nearly finished, with the fuselage done, and the wings 90% completed.....his build has, so far, taken two years(!)BTW

I hesitate to suggest that anyone approaches Sean Banister regarding this, but hope a "plan" can be arrived at by all interested parties, before this may be considered necessary. Anyway, this is all I have, so I hope it is of some help......my apologies for my dreadful photographic skills but this was all done yesterday in a VERY great hurry - sorry!

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Algebra 8 March 1979 003.JPG

Algebra 8 March 1979 005.JPG

PeteHs Algebra 8 fuselage 001.JPG

PeteHs Algebra 8 fuselage 005.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erik Dahl Christensen

Hi Pete,

Thank you vey much. I agree with you that a fuse from the old molds will be the easiest, instead of a "start-from-scratch" copy. I'm waiting to hear about availability.

I didn't realise that the wings had been build up. I always thought that they were balsa/foam and I can see the such a version also were available. I also thought that the span was greater. My mind was set on something 2800mm-ish, but I appear to be wrong on this.

My feeling about retro-building is that the plane must look pretty-close to the orriginal, but in my point of view new airfoils can be choosen, to make the daily user better. My thoughts are that the MH32 could work very well as a substitute for the Eppler 193, without notisable changes to the looks.

cheers

Erik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erik Dahl Christensen

Heureka! From reading the plans, I see that the Algebra 8 is "an intermidiate stage development leading to Algebra IX which will have 4 in extra wingspan (=>112"=285cm) with full span variable camber flaps/ailerons". It says nothing about the airfoil of the Algebra IX. With a modern airfoil I would guess that an Algebra IX wouldn't do too bad today:).

Cheers

Erik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Erik

Eppler 193 was the absolute "bees knees" at the time (1980's) but, by not using it, you'll pretty soon be having problems getting wings or wing bits that would be difficult to interchange easily

The "new kid on the block" after the Eppler series was the Quabeck range (HQ series) where the numbers of each airfoil were basically descriptions of what had changed from the previous one

Neither the Eppler, nor the Quabeck series were designed for integrating the flaps into the overall wing camber, and most Eppler and Quabeck airfoils were flown "clean" with flaps at Zero (i.e centred)

The change to integrating the flaps into (literally) the mix came after the Algebra series fell from favour

Also, in the early 80's the German Team especially had gone "all-moulded" and killed the wooden wing stone dead.......

If you stick to E193 or E205 your Algebra WILL perform well in most conditions - don't forget, the Algebra 8 didn't even have a big ballast tube in the fuselage(!) and I personally didn't see Sean "ballasting up" at all! - although he, quite possibly did, every once in a while - those were indeed the days!:thumbsup::)

The Algebra 8 F3B was, as I remember (it is a LONG time ago) were120" span, built-up and sheeted with balsa, covered in 25gsm glasscloth, the production "semi-kits" were build yourself, 100" R/E models with 48" white foam/veneer wing panels, probably covered in Profilm (Oracover).......

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erik Dahl Christensen

Hi Pete, thanks for the input and the sketches. They are very informative, and the text I refered to were from the drawings.

I'm not trying to outwise you, but I have though a few corrections, coupled with additional airfoil info. or history.

You are quite right that (most) the Eppler airfoils were not designed for flaps. A few were though: Eppler 211. I flew the Simprop "Optima" (Rald Decker design, my model: http://i59.servimg.com/u/f59/13/85/70/78/optima10.jpg) in 1983-1985, that had a Eppler 193 root airfoil and Eppler 180 tip airfoil.

The HQ series by Helmuth Quabeck were designed specifically for the use of flaps. HQ airfoils were first used at F3B WC level in Sacramento, USA 1981 and made well known in 1983, York when Ralf Decker won (model: "No name", airfoil HQ 2,5/9 https://www.aerodesign.de/modelle/F3B/noname.gif) and Helmuth came second (model "Dohle", airfoil HQ 1,5/9 https://www.aerodesign.de/modelle/F3B/dohle-x-82.gif). Helmouths  own "Masterpiece" with HQW 2/9 were top of the pops in the middle  90'ies for F3B AND F3F. I used a slightly thinner variant - HQW 2/8 - on our F3B/F3J design "Trinitus" in 1997 https://www.aerodesign.de/modelle/F3B/trinitus.htm. HQ-airfoils gained popularity at the same time when flapperons coupling became available and hence active flaps in flight were used. 2,5-5 deg negative flaps for speed and 2,5-5 deg positive flaps for thermal. Zero flaps for speeds in between.

The RG airfoils (Rolf Girsberg, Shwizerland) where especially the RG 15 became THE airfoil for F3B from the middle/end of the 80'ies to the late 90'ies (Ellipse I and II among others https://www.aerodesign.de/modelle/F3B/ellipse2v.htm). RG were flown clean and does not benefit from neither negative nor positive flaps during flight. Only positive flaps at launch and butterfly brake for landing.

MH 32 (Martin Hepperle) were catching on with the Calypso Cobra (https://www.aerodesign.de/modelle/F3B/calypsocobra.htm) in the end of the 90i'es as well as the HQ variant HQW (very close to the original HQ series).

From the beginning/middle of the 0'es, blended airfoils started to gain advantage in many glider classes and most are secret today.

Algebra VIII/IX with perhaps MH32 or Supra -AG series (Mark Drela) and flaps+ailerons:

It wil have a slight issue with matching the fuselage with Eppler 193-root airfoil -> it's doable.

It will have better performance due to the poor middle Cl-performance of the Eppler 193.

Both airfoil modifications will have better high speed performance unballasted, than the Eppler 193 original.

You'll need to make the wings a little stronger I think.

You will not be able to see the difference in looks when flying.

Cheers

Erik

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Erik

I'm now very confused.....this topic started with someone wanting NOT to convert an Algebra 8 to electric but wanting to build an Algebra 8 to "original" spec

Original spec is E193...why are you wishing to "update" the wing section using flaps if it's NOT for competition?

To me, this is a classic case of making a silk purse into a sow's ear, by modifying the original design in having a "better" airfoil ........ if E193 was good enough for Sean, and the design became iconic because of its performance, why change  it at all?

As I said, I am now confused as to why you are wanting to change anything of the original design, are you wanting to build an Algebra 8 to original design and spec or are you wanting to update the design, if so, for what reason?

I thought you wanted the original plans so that you could make an Algebra 8 "replica", is that not now the case?

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erik Dahl Christensen

Hi Pete Beadle (and maybe others),

I'm sorry to have confused you, Pete, and I'm sorry if what I have written in my 5 posts, have offended you or others. That was never my intention. If anybody thinks I have hi-jacked this thread, that started with someone (John H) wanting NOT to convert an Algebra 8 to electrics, I appoligiese for that, and will ask the moderator to remove my postings?

I wrote wednesday 23rd of august at 16:09, that MY approach to retro-building, vintage planes, etc. is that the looks matter to me. Therefor an Algebra 8 retrobuild (ver. 2017) that looks like an Algebra 8 or perhaps 9 suits me fine. When Sean Bannister wrote on the instructions that the #8 was supposed to be followed by a #9 with flaps/ailerons, I think such a replika could be nice to do. I my self am not very into "everything has to bee the same as in 1980'ies" (except the music  :) ). I don't see anything wrong with vintageplanes with electrics or even vintage free flighters with 2.4 ghz RC, and hence I don't have a problem with changing something aerodynamical that can not be seen (very clearly). Changes that I think will make ME happier in everyday use, but that just my humble oppinion.

Again, If I have hijacked this thread in any way, I appologise, and will try to make the wrong right.

Yours sincerely

Erik Dahl Christensen, Denmark
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Erik

My sincere apologies if you think I was doubting what you were suggesting....as I said, I was CONFUSED by the fact that you needed the original plans to make or rebuild, or re-refurbish an Algebra 8 NOT that you were going to change such important details as the wing section, number of servos in the wing, without first making sure that the original specification was adequate

As you may or may not know, I organise ISA Nostalgia Day each year at Ivinghoe, where ISA members come and fly models that are nostalgic to them.....I DON'T specify what they can or can't do to the models they fly - we just discuss why they consider it was necessary to make changes - we often refer to design "flaws" in the originals that they have modified to be "cured". I'm not telling you not to make the changes you think you need, I think it is perfectly acceptable to modify any 'plane so it suits you......I'm just puzzled as to why you think your changes will make it "better". If you're not intending to compete with it, why does it's performance have to be "improved" from standard?

Please don't think I'm criticising you, and your choices to modify the original design, before you know what it is capable of in "standard" form, I'm just puzzled as to why you think your changes will improve the design before you fly it "as is"

Once again, my apologies if you think I am criticising you in any shape or form, I hope that this explanation reassures you, because I'm not intending to be critical at all, I'm just puzzled........

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erik Dahl Christensen

Hi Pete,

Thank you for you answer and input. My main reason for thinking about changing the airfoil, is as I write "daily use", and to me that is first glide and then sink ratio, and not very much high speed. I'm assured that a newer (better?) airfoil, will give better glide compared to the Eppler 193. I may be wrong. My first thoughts were about the Algebra 8 with ailerons as Sean also used, but when I saw his comments about his then further improvement-path about flaps/ailerons, I thought that I would also be a retro build, wtih even better "now adays" daily use.

Cheers

Erik

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satinet

If it were me I would use a more modern aerofoil if I was building from scratch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rc-soar

Well here's an original Algebra 8 still going strong - with designer Sean Bannister! Next to him is Dave Woods with Aeolus.

Shot earlier this summer at Ivinghoe. Great to see the two of them together.

R0200312_sRGB.thumb.jpg.a15976647d575a826fe66b6a6f0332a6.jpg

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meadowhay

Forgive me chaps for coming so late to the party!

As a huge fan of Algebras back in the day  (I built my first plywood fuselage version in 1979) I can say for sure that the Algebra 8 and onwards featured alloy tubes as combined sparse and ballast tubes. I seem to recall that Sean wrote an article for the SMAE News (precursor of today's  BMFA News) explaining their development and use. The details escape me, but I do remember him talking of hearing a loud crack during a winch launch  (this was, after all in the days of "winch-wars") and the subsequent delicate return to earth. 

There was at least one blue foam and veneer model built by Sean that I saw at the Model Engineer Exhibition that I think was described as 3m, but I can't be sure and featured full span flaps with bottom hinging, exposing the blue cores. 

The 8 was designed to be 3m span (110") which was standard at that time and the 100" fuselage/foam wing/plan set came from Clive Hall Models in Cheddar. I had at least 3 of those and a few more fuselages. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

I had the good fortune to be sitting opposite SeanB at the Ivinghoe Xmas bash(and 40th anniversary of the founding of the ISA) on 6th December 2017

Sean was approached by one of our members who spoke to him about "updating" the airfoil section and his response was, I think, important, so I'll tell you here......he said "Why don't you try the "old" section first, before you go off into the unknown, after all, I did do rather well in competitions with the original section"

A lot of the discussions regarding "modern" wing sections seem to forget that most modern sections are designed to be used with all-moving trailing edges (ie with flaps) and "computer" transmitters with complicated mixing programmes......the Algebra 8 didn't have flaps and didn't need an expensive multi-function tranny to get it to perform

Might be worth considering the attractions of simplicity, before you start on the search of performance involving higher cost(s) - no? Just a thought......

Merry Crimble and Happy Hogmanay to all:thumbsup::P

Pete

BARCS1702. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meadowhay
28 minutes ago, pete beadle said:

Hi all

I had the good fortune to be sitting opposite SeanB at the Ivinghoe Xmas bash(and 40th anniversary of the founding of the ISA) on 6th December 2017

Sean was approached by one of our members who spoke to him about "updating" the airfoil section and his response was, I think, important, so I'll tell you here......he said "Why don't you try the "old" section first, before you go off into the unknown, after all, I did do rather well in competitions with the original section"

A lot of the discussions regarding "modern" wing sections seem to forget that most modern sections are designed to be used with all-moving trailing edges (ie with flaps) and "computer" transmitters with complicated mixing programmes......the Algebra 8 didn't have flaps and didn't need an expensive multi-function tranny to get it to perform

Might be worth considering the attractions of simplicity, before you start on the search of performance involving higher cost(s) - no? Just a thought......

Merry Crimble and Happy Hogmanay to all:thumbsup::P

Pete

BARCS1702. 

Hooray to that! Sean did indeed do rather well with it. 

If it ain't broke.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

Algebra 8 IN PINK for sale on BMFA today, for anyone who doesn't want the bother of the build mebbe.......

I wonder if that's an "oop nerth" sort of colour/choice/thing? Anyway, it IS different:)

Regards

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.