Peter Watson

The winning model

Watson's models are very orthodox, according to him, owing much to the Verbitsky models. He took five models to the W/C, models No. 30,31,33,37 and 36 of his design line, all fixed wing models, with Verbitsky wings and airfoils, except for the unused model 36 that had a wing with the new Eggleston BE9744 airfoil, which has consid­erable undercamber and the maximum thickness well for­ward.

Of these models, No. 31 was used in most rounds. The model was refined and simplified from the original Ukrainian design. It has a one-piece fuselage consisting of a self-made front part in 3 layers of 200 gsm carbon cloth. The tail boom is a commercial Szabo unit in carbon/ Kevlar. The wing is self made, with 100" span and has the current six-panel configuration. Some washout is ap­plied to the middle and outer panels.

Peter Watson model 2009

The emphasis on the model design and equipment is simplicity: there are no electronic timer or servos, Watson relies on a mechanical timer, no wing wigglers, no two- stage glide settings. He uses a geared Nelson Hummer en-

31,000 rpm on the ground. These figures are ap­proached by the other manufacturers. All these engines share quite a similar general design and layout, al­though there are many detail variations.

Propellers to suit these geared engines have evolved from the original 2-bladers first seen in the Verbitsky engine in 1998. Now the preference seems to be for the 3 and 4-bladed props, with considerable attention paid to efficient folding upon prop stoppage. Perhaps the reason for this change could reside in a wish to solve the vibration problems mentioned above, a problem that was detected initially in the two-bladed arrangement.

Electronic advances are certainly well represented in the present F1C models, with evidence of a large proportion of them using electronic timers and RCDT units from a variety of American and European sources^.

gine with a two bladed propeller, set a 3 degrees down- thrust.

Regarding engines, after using with success Nelson engines in direct drive applications up to 2002, Watson made the change to geared Nelson Hummer engines. He ran into the same problems as many others: vibration and inefficient propeller blades. So he switched for time to Verbitsky engines, which seemed to have solved the vibra­tion problems by using elastic urethane bushes at the hinge points of the blade.

But he returned to the Nelson engines, once Doug Galbreath solved the Hummer vibration, and with the new APC blades with urethane bushes he had a combination that ran very well, faster than the alternatives he had tried.

Comment on F1C technicalities

The number of folders seen at the 2009 W/C was vastly increased, being perhaps the majority among the models. Geared engines too are by far the most popular, attaining perhaps an 80% ratio. Nevertheless, one has to remember that the highly rated Fuzeyev model (2nd place) has a direct drive engine of his own design, based on a Team Racing engine. There were several other engine makes represented here, among diem Cyclon, Fora and Verbitsky. The Nelson was used by Watson and Dick Mathis.

From Free Flight Quarterly
April2010
BE Profile

Add comment


Security code
Refresh