Teresa

This is Teresa. Had to come looking for this just because of all the slack I was taking over it. If Mark would quit posting with my user name the posts might make more sense.

zipnz1

My Feedback: (2)

I have been working on the 109 pretty steady over the last couple winters but i have neglected updating the thread i started 2 years ago. I was working over the last month and a half on the cowl plug and was pretty pumped this week when i pulled the cowl out of my mold. I spent a lot of time putting some details into the plug including the panel lines, cowl hatches and most of the major cowl major features. I plan on powering the model with a DL-111 engine and as you can see it doesnt look very massive in the cowl but i did have to tilt it to fit. I have some more pics that i took last winter and will post some in the next few days.

zipnz1

My Feedback: (2)

a few more pics

JÖRÖ

Wow,
Nice big bird!! I keep eye on this..
-Jörö-

Scott Prossen

I assume you are aware that the 55lbs limit has been increased substantially. Can't recall right now but I think it's up wards of 77 to 100lbs before an inspection is needed for prop jobs. The end all limit for props has moved from 100 to 125lbs.

Great build. Love the work! Keep it up.

Scott

bigphil

My Feedback: (6)

I believe you are mistaken on the change on the weight limit Scott. The 55 lb limit is still in effect for U. S. flyers. The maximum weight is also still at 100 lbs. These requirements are what is currently shown on the AMA web site in the Large Model Aircraft Program document dated August 14, 2010. The only reference to the 77 to 100 lbs weight range you refer to is to allow foreign competitors to obtain a permit to fly aircraft in domestic events. If there is something changing these limits, I don't see it...

The cowl and plane are looking pretty cool Mike. I need to talk with you about the cowl a bit more since I'm going to be interested in making several fiberglass components for my winter project. I thought you were going to have Rick do the cowl for you???

zipnz1

My Feedback: (2)

Things are still on track to keep it under the 55# weight limit but it looks like its going to be closer to the limit than i care to be. it would be nice if the limit was raised at least another 10#, larger planes have seemed to be getting more popular lately. i have had a over the limit plane before and i would rather avoid the hassel factor and restrictions again if possible.

Phil i will have to get with you and give you some pointers on fiberglass work.
I did all the cowl work myself as i have done this stuff in the past and i know rick has a full plate. i did go and see rick a couple weeks ago, he ordered some wood from balsa usa and i bought some epoxy from him because he buys it in bulk.

Luft-Gangster

Wow, I love it. New inspiration on a similar project started in Jan 09 and stalled out that spring. I scaled up a Brian Taylor 61" Bf109E to and 81" the hard way. Diveded the print into grids, coppied each grid, then enlarged them on my all-in-one and taped them together on my light table (old sliding glass door). I ventured into the foam loss method for the fuse. After framing, I skined it only on the formers and filled between with foam. Cut the foam to the contour of the formers, Econokoted over the fuse. Next, I trimed the Econokote off only the fromers. Glassed the fuse and used a combination of methods to remove the foam from the inside. This makes for a very light fuse. It has been hanging from the ceiling in my garage ever since. Note; the older BT 61" version did not have flaps. so I ordered the 68" version for a new wing. I installed Dave Platt retracts with Williams Bro's wheels.
Keep up the great work.
See attached photo's of my 109.

kahloq

The AUG 14th 2010 specifications have been update. The last mag from the AMA I got mentioned the weight limit increases. Now..I cant recall if these were in planning and awaiting approval from the FAA or some other government body or if they actually went into effect jan 2011

Scott Prossen

Be patient BigPhil and Zipnz1. The changes are happening.
You will see them before you complete your project and I believe will be in affect shortly if they are not already!

Be a believer!

Scott

langerl

My Feedback: (5)

Hey Mike!
The project looks GREAT!  I look forward to seeing its completion.
Have you given any thought to what the oblique installation of the DLE will do to its reliability or starting? I've a similar install in mind for a Brison 6.4 twin in a Z Hellcat and I've been wondering about this issue for a while.  Granted, my Brison has mini-plugs installed, so flooding of the lower cylinder on start-up would be more of a concern, but other than unequal head temps, I shouldn't think there would be a problem.  Whaddya' think?
My other option was to go with a nice Moki 150 radial, but to quote others, I could do without all the "drama" of that motor.  But they sure sound sweet.

Regards,
langerl

zipnz1

My Feedback: (2)

Scott, that would be awesome if the overweight limit is raised. With the current weight limit it would more than likely determine how much scale detailing i would be able to add to the model.

Gangster- your project is looking great. I know how easy it is to get away from a project, i normally do all my building during the winter months and put the project away for the summer. Would love to see your 109 completed. What were you planning to power it with?
I built a meister p-47 with the lost foam technique like you did around 1997. Removing the foam was the hardest part. i believe i used gasoline to melt away a lot of the foam, it made a heck of a mess but when i pulled the econocoat covering out of the fiberglass was spotlessly clean.

Lynn, the engine dont really care which position it is mounted because of the pump carburetor but i have to build a custom exhaust. Cooling is one of my concerns because the cowl in mostly closed up. I was thinking about making a centrifical fan type flywheel like a zenoah g-38 and some quadra engines and fabricate a shroud and cool the engine like a chainsaw or the lawn mower.

Luft-Gangster

Thanks Mike
Right now I don't know what I'm going to power it with. My options at this point are a Quadra 35, US41, ST4500 or buy something new.
On the lost foam I used Acetone, gasoline and a wire pick bent to a hook. Agree, it was a mess. Had a few bad spots where the Econokote started melting during the fiberglass cureing process. That caused a few thin spots that were repaired. I too build mostly in the winter, but since I have retired I have been trying to do too much. I currently am building the Bf109E 81", Byron P-51 clone modified to a B/C 85", Platt P-51B 81". I'm coaching High School Baseball, and I umpire youth travel baseball to stay in shape.
I picked the screen name "Luft-Gangster" because of the stories my old next door neighbor told me. He was a navigator on B-17's and spent the lastyear and a half in Stalag Luft 1 where our fly boys were called Luft Gangsters and Terror Fleegans by the Germans. He was a neet old guy.

Thanks
Leroy

bigphil

My Feedback: (6)

Regarding the increased weight limits... I was personally involved in administering a contest with overweight planes in attendance a few years back that developed into some controversy. The AMA rules were unclear and have been substantially revised since. I worked in close contact with our District VII VP to get these rules clarified and have tried to keep tabs on them since. So when I saw the subject raised here, and folks adamant that the rules have changed, I went back to my district VP to see what was happening in this regard. Here's what he told me. I'm paraphrasing, not quoting him.

At this point, there is a "proposal" to revise the weight limits on large models. There are different versions of the proposal with different limits being considered. At this time, it has not been approved or even put into final form, it is merely a proposal. So, while indeed at some future time the rules may change, there is nothing set in concrete as to what those changes might be. A prudent person might therefore keep the provisions of the existing AMA guidance in mind while building large models.

The builder of this model is trying to keep his plane under the current 55 lbs limit and thus avoid having to deal with these regulations at all and clearly raising the limits would make this easier to achieve. Since he flies at our club field, I have a keen interest in how this plays out. So it's not that I don't believe but as a contest director and president of our local club, I must follow the direction of the AMA.

Scott Prossen

Thanks for the update Bigphil. I sure hope they do push through the proposals and make it legal for us to produce and fly some of these larger warbirds. Prudent it is then and legal as always. I am working on a large bird as well and although I believe I will be under the current 100 pound limit the new proposed 125 lbs limit would allow for a lot more breathing room!

Thanks for looking into it for us all.

zipnz1

My Feedback: (2)

I like scott would like to see the experimental weight class raised, i think the 55# limit is getting dated. wingspan has a awesome set of plans for a 1/6 scale b-17 and at that size it would be quite a challange to keep it under 100#.

Now that i have my cowl project behind me i thought i would concentrate on the engine.
I cut out a 6 pound blank out of 7050 aluminum plate and cleaned it up in the lathe. its going to take some time but i am planing to machine a centrifugal fan something like the one in the last pic but without the magnets for the magneto to cool the dle 111 engine.

Dave73

My Feedback: (1)

Looking good Mike. I can't wait to see it person. It looks a lot different since the last time I saw it.

langerl

My Feedback: (5)

Regarding Experimental Class models....

As most folks who build and fly very large models would probably agree, an aircraft that is designed to an artificial weight limit for its size is NOT safer than a model which is built STRONG enough for its ultimate flying weight.  It's common sense (except perhaps at AMA) that a model should be build strong enough before it is built light enough. 

Think!  Which would you rather see flying at a heavily attended Warbirds Event - a 1/6th scale B-17 that has been lightened enough to meet the 100lb upper limit all up weight or a model which has been over-built (and is possibly over-weight) that is absolutely strong enough to be a safe and completely sound under any flight conditions it is likely to encounter?

The Large Model Association (LMA?) in the UK seems to have found a solution long ago.  Why can't the AMA figure out this problem?  Does ANYONE think an 80" model is GIANT scale anymore?  Can anyone deny the trend toward larger model in the U.S.?  Does the insurance industry dictate what we can and can not do in our hobby? (Sigh.... probably, at the moment).

I for one, am certainly glad there is some long-overdue action in this arena.  Here's hoping more reasoned heads will prevail.

My $.05. 

langerl

jk464

I'm guessing the point of the restriction is to keep the models from being to big. I have seen some mighty cool projects on here and other sites that are just amazing to witness, but you have to admit they are dangerous as hell. The craziest one I saw was like a half scale skyraider, but it should definitely have heavy restrictions put on it with where it can fly.

geardaddy

My Feedback: (27)

So what is it that makes a big Skyraider dangerous then?

butlern

My Feedback: (15)

F=ma

jk464

It was one of those super giant rc planes that they do over in europe/england. I don't remember the exact weight but it was in the hundreds of pounds. It would definitely take down a light airplane in a collision and as we all know our radio systems are not 100% trustworthy. The 50cc size seems big enough if you are going to fly in city limits, if you are out in the middle of the Mohave desert I guess have at it.

Thunderbolt47

My Feedback: (8)

Didn't one of those superlight B-17s suffer tail flutter and crash. Maybe if it was built stronger?

ram3500-RCU

My Feedback: (221)

My $.02.

We live in an age when size can be safer than ever before. Let me explain that comment. Radios (2.4 technology, battery systems, redundancy in both power and RX, data monitoring, servo reliability and unbelievable strength, etc), engines ( power, ignition, dedication to the RC task, etc), airframes (new composite building materials, years of accumulated knowledge in RC construction, more and more giant scale hardware available), many more players in the pipeline of Giant scale in the states to consult and garner help from, are a few reasons why I feel this way.

To me, and I have been involved in giant scale since the 80s, our planes don't even compare to those we had decades ago, as far as safety is concerned. They were heavy, underpowered (usually), and controlled with radios that, even though being the best available at the time, were very vulnerable.

Now bad things can and do still happen, but is a 50cc plane less likely to be involved than a 200cc? Absolutely not. I contend that it is just the opposite, for what we have now is a glut of 50cc ARFs on the market, at very affordable prices, being sucked up by all manor of modelers, many of which have little or no experience with giant scale. What I call '2-56 mentality' causes far more problems in giant scale than does the construction, yes engineer and design then CONSTRUCTION of the larger of the giants. The planes we are talking about, the ones like this thread is about and others like it, are not glued together by Chinese kids, they are carefully and meticulously built by skilled craftsman, knowledgeable in the construction and requirements of large airframes. The result is a safer airplane than many of the 120 size flying every day at fields all over this country.

Also, these gentile giants are not flown at the average field, BECAUSE of there size and airstrip requirements.

Safety will always be at the very top of our concerns in building model aircraft. Building strong, rigging properly given the mass, using quality components, and a style of flying that shows discipline and respect for size and weight, all contributes to the safety record that we have.

Even in the days of poor power, overweight airframes, and not so good radios, I still never caused any damage to person, or personal property. I feel SO much better about what I do today, even with much larger and heavier aircraft than I would have even imagined back then.

And now very nice job on that cowl. I wish I had your fiberglass skill. Looking forward to seeing this one in the air.

JPate147

I don't comment often, but I too believe our giant scale models are safer than the average 60-1.20 size plane at any given field. They are (for the most part) flown carefully and skillfully by owners that have many thousands of dollars invested in their model(s). We build in redundancy wherever possible, within the limits of our budgets.

I agree completely with RAM3500's comments.