Fairey Flycatcher (oz15978)

About this Plan

Fairey Flycatcher. Radio control scale model biplane fighter. Wingspan 58 in, for .61 engine.

Direct submission to Outerzone.

Update 21/4/2025: Added article, thanks to RFJ.

Quote: "Gorgeous 58 in span sport-scale multi model. Fairey Flycatcher, by Brian Taylor.

For over a decade, from 1923 to 1934, the Flycatcher was a standard first-line fighter of the Fleet Air Arm, and, indeed, from 1924 to 1932 was the only type of fleet fighter. Put into production in 1923 with the 400 hp Armstrong-Siddeley Jaguar IV, it was re-engined in 1924 with the 425 hp Bristol Jupiter IV.

Few modellers can fail to be attracted by its strongly individual appearance, with marked dihedral on the upper wings and none on the lower ones, the rather ungainly-looking undercarriage and a fuselage which, with the characteristic fin and rudder, gave the impression of a tail-up sit. The machine was specially designed for ship-board use, so that it dismantled into very compact sections. For deck landings, the full-span Fairey camber-changing trailing-edge flaps, in conjunction with hydraulic wheel-brakes, reduced the landing run to some 50 yards.

Probably because it saw service only in peace-time, the Flycatcher is not particularly well known today, but it was a familiar sight - and in fact a star turn - at many air displays in the 1920's.

THERE are, in my opinion, two types of scale model - the competition model and the sport scale type. It will need only a glance at the plans presented here for it to be realised that this Flycatcher of mine falls into the second of these categories. We are all, I am sure, familiar with the superb scale models that appear at the competitions, perfect down to the last rivet and which have obviously taken a minimum of six months to build - and probably an awful lot longer. For models built and kept specially for competitions, this is fair enough. However, for the sport flyer who wishes to fly scale types regularly every weekend and maybe a couple of evenings a week, models such as these are generally not a practical proposition. A model aircraft has, in any event a very uncertain life expectancy, and even if it does not actually prang, it is subject, in continual use, to pretty severe wear and tear.

Having decided to build a sport scale model, then, we must first realise that in order to build it in an acceptable time, a lot of the fine scale detail can be omitted and, if necessary, small liberties taken with the design in order to make it practicable as a model. The reader may now be getting the idea that I don't like building models but, I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth. It is just that I do not like wasted effort and I feel that hours spent, say, putting in individual rivets with spots of thickened paint on what is essentially a flying model is wasted, because all such detail is lost as soon as the model starts its take-off run. Of course this fine detail is nice to see when the model is at close quarters, and a certain amount is certainly necessary for a competition model - but if a modeller really likes looking at his model rather than flying it, surely he would be better advised to build solid scale!

I mentioned small departures from true scale, as this may be necessary in order to make a model more practical structurally, rather than, necessarily, to make it fly better. An example of this is the tail unit of the Flycatcher. On the full size machine, the tailplane is supported above the fuselage on small struts and the fin is, in turn, supported above the tailplane. I decided that, on a flying model, this arrangement would be just too liable to damage from the slightest bump - and one can just imagine what the vibration from a 10 cc engine would do 40 it. There is, I think, a good chance that even someone who is familiar with the prototype would fail to detect this deviation from scale without a close study of drawings or photographs.

To my mind, it is more important that the model should look like the real thing when it is in the air, and to fly like it, rather than that there should be the correct number of rivets on the cowling or buttons on the pilot's flying suit! That, then, is the philosophy of my approach to flying scale models. I hope that the opinions I have expressed will be food for thought for some - and not cause too much anguish to the scale purists.

Building the model: Fuselage: This is not nearly so complicated as it looks. First build up the nose section, consisting of two 1/4 in ply front bulkheads, 1/8 ply former F1, the two 1/2 in sheet nose sides and the 1/8 ply floor of the fuel tank bay. Next build the 1/4 in side frames (shown separately on the plan, for clarity) and glue the 1/16 ply sides to them. Join the sides with the nose section and F3, pull in the tail ends and join with the tailpost. Now add the in. sq. spacers to the rear fuselage and the basic structure is complete. The cabane struts are added before doing any planking.

Cabane struts: I have a system for these which I have used on all my biplanes and found most satisfactory. First make up the jig shown on the plan, which consists of two simple frames of 1/8 sheet balsa. Mount these on top of the fuselage in the correct positions and cement lightly in place. Now bend the two 10 g wire wing seats and fit these on the jig, binding with thread and cementing in place. Obviously, extreme accuracy is essential in making the jig and setting up the wing seats, as on this depends the whole 'rig' of the model. Now bend and fit the 10 g struts into the fuselage sides with pieces of grooved 1/4 ply and epoxy to the 1/16 ply sides. Leave the jig in place, of course, until the epoxy resin has thoroughly set, and you have bound and soldered the wing seats to the strut ends, and the 12 g cross braces to the struts, as shown..."

Supplementary file notes

Article.

Corrections?

Did we get something wrong with these details about this plan (especially the datafile)? That happens sometimes. You can help us fix it.
Add a correction