Ballerina (oz16877)

 

Do you have a photo you'd like to submit for this page? Then email admin@outerzone.co.uk

User comments

Hi Steve/Mary, Lovely to see Vic Smeed's Ballerina make it to the archive. Back in 2014, I had the privilege of doing a build and review of an electric Ballerina for Quiet & Electric Flight International (thank you Kevin), supplied as a part kit from The Old School Model Aeroplane Factory. Power was a 1400kv brushless on a 2S LiPo.
I've enclosed a few pictures of the build [main pic, 004-007] for the exclusive use of Outerzone and its true followers to use (not for any pirated clone websites...) and there is a copy of the article, if anyone is interested.
Keep up your excellent work.
Roger T - 15/07/2026
I had the original kit back in the day. Wish I still had it now.
terry blackman - 15/07/2026
Is the wing incidence maintained even when doing RC?
Diego - 27/07/2026
Back in the day, way back actually, me and my buddies flew small free flight models. RC was outside of our budget and not reliable anyway. My favorite was the Pee Wee 020, just about right for this airplane. I agree it has a LOT of incidence in the wing. We would go ahead and build it that way, then adjust the CG until a hand glide indicated it was about right. A free flight model has to fly by itself, no RC to correct any problems. Usually the engine would need some downthrust to tame the climb before the engine quit. It takes a lot of downthrust to make much difference. A couple of washers behind the bolts was not enough. Once all these adjustments were made, we had a good flyer. Engine run was limited by holding the model sideways while filling the tank, didn't always work. You would be surprised how high a Pee Wee would get after a two minute run. And run we did to retrieve it before it got out of sight. But RC is different. I would take most of the incidence out. If you line up the bottom of the wing airfoil with the stab, it will have just enough. I assume you'll have rudder and elevator control. Probably best to move the CG back a little also, looks too far forward to me. Adding downthrust during construction is easy. You can adjust trim with elevator. If it glides OK but climbs too steeply under power, it's NOSE heavy. If you ever have to give it down elevator on landing, it's tail heavy. Should make a beautiful little model, go for it.
Doug Smith - 27/07/2026
Diego, in my build for the magazine article, I stayed as per plan, i.e. with the significant wing incidence and dihedral. The aim was to reproduce the model as offered in 1955, not to modify it, with 60 years of radio control hindsight to result in a 21st century flying machine.
I did add a couple of washers to the top of the motor for a little extra downthrust with the more powerful (electric versus glow) motor, but the key changes were in the flying style - use more power to climb (quickly and up to 1950's contest model heights!), modest throttle for stable cruising flight, or back right off to bring it down where you want it (a 1950's luxury!).
The rudder was very effective, rocking the model into a turn, which combined with elevator, allowed the pilot to hold it in a banked turn. The bonus of elevator control allowed the nose to be kept down for speedy penetration in wind, or to slow down and flair for landing. Otherwise, the main flying was hands-off, as befitting the sport free flight design brief of the original Ballerina.
I've posted Mary a copy of the original article which gives the build and flying details which you might find interesting.
Roger
Roger T - 28/07/2026
Add a comment