Back to Basics

I take your point Simon, I'll wear sackcloth and ashes for ten minutes next Friday week. I'll have a rummage through my photos. Somewhere I've some shots of my WOT 4 Mk 1. A thing of beauty and has 1" dihedral under each tip, as per the manual,(half an A4 sheet) which was written by Chris Foss years ago. When I look at a WOT 4 now, the straight wing makes me think that the model has had a hard landing and done some mischief to the centre section. Finally, I think its the Acrowot that has its wing built upside down so that the wing section taper is on the underside and gives the appearance of "dihedral", or it might have been my scratch built CAP 21.Memory not quite what it used to be. Not a lot of time on the Kadet today. Made up the hardwood blocks for mounting the main U/C, hacked some blue foam and glued the pieces together to make a plug for the Kadet's cowling.

I also had a mk1 (I think) Wot4 in 1979? with a 'planform' wing. I'm sure it didn't have dihedral even in those days. Yours must have been a very early example Brian

At the time, the WOT 4 was some pre-cut (bandsawn) pieces, a veneered foam wing and a single sheet of paper with a couple of diagrams and a few dimensions and the build instructions. A few years ago, some enterprising chap drew it up, and sold the plan on a website. I don't think Mr. Foss was at all pleased. The profile of the WOT 4 was a bit different, much blunter and unswept fin and rudder, and I think the elevator had a fragile "balance" tab on each end, the fuselage seemed to be a bit deeper too.

Getting back to the SIG Kadet, I fitted W bracing as the fuselage isn't going to be clad in balsa sheet, the U/C mounting block is glued in, and the foam block is marked out ready to start making a horrendous mess of blue polystyrene dust tomorrow. I'm having spinach for lunch for the next few days, perhaps I'll have enough strength by then to be able to heave the 4mm U/C wire into a pair of main landing gear legs. I have two lengths of wire, so with luck I'll eventually end up with a "pair" of usable legs.

Simon O wrote: Brian! What do you mean a high wing model without dihedral looks wrong?!!!
Please, treat yourself to a mouthwash! Don't you remember the beauty, grace, unsurpassed flying characteristics of probably one of the most popular models ever designed and flown?!!! None other than of course the incredible, unsurpassed WOT4!!!
Really?

"beauty, grace, unsurpassed flying characteristics", you sure you're thinking of the Wot4 Simon????

When I started flying (1980) a company produced a trainer called the Gnatty ()maybe Natty). Based on the Folland Gnat, you could build it with dihedral and 3-ch, no dihedral and 4-ch or anhedral of better aerobatic performance. I remember seeing them fly at Sandown and they looked ok in the air.

No Jon but it wound Brian up!

Rotter!

MikeSeale wrote: When I started flying (1980) a company produced a trainer called the Gnatty ()maybe Natty). Based on the Folland Gnat, you could build it with dihedral and 3-ch, no dihedral and 4-ch or anhedral of better aerobatic performance. I remember seeing them fly at Sandown and they looked ok in the air.

I remember them well Mike, the anhedral one looked quite good.

I remember someone did a Wot4 clone with anhedral, it didn't look good!!

Here's one somebody made earlier.