bladebender

My Feedback: (5)

if i was to guess you are still tail heavy , next time you fly it get it trimed and slow if down high up and see if it drops a wing.need to use rudder on take off to much elevator will make it snap more to the left I hold elevator on take off and let the plane lift itself off, have seen alot of people make the plane jump off the ground.Best bet is more ground speed. Read alot of times heavy warbird are harder to land and take off.Have flown mine in for nice landing and start to turn and landing gear folds up

do335a

Hot dog take off technique turns plane into pancake.

Insufficient airspeed results in snap and spin to left, followed by crash unless instant correction applied.

Next time, forget about yanking plane off the ground as soon as the wheels start to roll. Build up to a good flying speed and let the pland lift off on its own or gently ease into the air once it's light on the wheels and bouncing into the air ever so gently on its own, showing you that it's ready to fly.

Avoid temptation to immitate a helicopter (3D fler) as soon as you clear the ground.

One last item. That built in elevator differential is something to deal with prior to the maiden. Whatever is wrong on the ground won't get any better in the air or attempt to get there. It's just sloppy and lazy not to find it and deal with it first.

skillet92

I was more shocked than you when I weighted it. I weighted it the first time all together and did not believe it. So then I weighted the wing and the fuse separate. I have checked and rechecked it. Mine is light. Now it will be getting heavier when I add the robart retracts and 1/2 inch struts. I will be going electric with them. It is balanced at the front of the suggested range. As of now I fly with the retracts down because I have not wanted to buy 2 retract servos. I have heard some bad reviews on the stock struts. Went and re weighted and took some pics. 15pounds 6ozs. I think I did not have the servos in it to hold the retracts down and no batts for the 14 14 weight. But this is the weight I have flown it at. Now I am using life's for ignition and reciever.

skillet92

Now I can say the heavier my warbirds the longer I have to run up to takeoff. And the faster I have to come in. The first time I flew this fw190 I tried to yank her off the ground to fast and it was bad. This plane is heavy wing loading and requires speed. I found that and rudder solved my issues.

sensei

Wow, this thing at 17 lbs. has a wing loading of 45 ozs. and the cubed loading is over 18 and that is higher than a racer, also keep in mind that this platform has very low reynolds numbers, so that is not working in your favor as well. Add 3-4 degrees of elevator differential, and possibly an aft C/G condition due to the fact that the advertised weight of 12.7 lbs. and yours at 17 lbs. tells me that most likely some of that extra weight had to of wound up aft of the C/G because there is not a hell of allot of airplane in front of it. So if it is still tail heavy, adding even more weight is only going to increase your problems. Add all this up and you have an accident looking for a place to happen. I would look for ways to dump some weight, everything you do on an airplane is a tradeoff and the facts of this airplane are speaking for themselves...

Bob

da Rock

I think we got just about every base covered on what might have contributed.

Of course, there might just be one additional bit of info. Tail draggers add an extra problem. Their ground stance places the wing way past it's stall angle. The stance also starts the wing off beyond the max lift AOA. So as the plane starts the takeoff roll, the instant the wing hits a flying airspeed it hits at the closest AOA to a stall. It's really good to moderate the engine's acceleration early on in the takeoff roll so the rest of the plane is flying before the wing suddenly comes online just a degree from it's stall AOA.

sensei

Excellent point!

Bob

da Rock

Another usually overlooked detail about tail draggers that has some affect is the CG relative to where the rubber meets the road.

Lots of modelers take comfort in having a really "safe" CG. The unfortunate detail for some of them is what the CG does to the model as the takeoff roll is getting underway. When the CG is too far forward for ground handling, it will greatly lighten the tail. Anything that slows the tires forward progress will help rotate the wing to liftoff AOA before the model has all it's parts flying. Having a light "tail wheel" also gives you a light tail. Nose heavy can make the plane easier for you to control at speed and sometimes make the model almost impossible to control in the early part of the takeoff roll.

I've got a number of Warbirds and not a one of them has the wheels as far forward as they are on the full scale planes. Corsairs are the worst. My P40 is probably next worse. The Spitfire is a joke. The Hellcat isn't as good as it should be. The Thunderbolt isn't too bad but isn't scale. My 50 size Corsair is far better than the 60size thanks to the 100degree gear available for the 50. In fact the 50 size is my present favorite to fly simply because of it's ground handling. It's a shame the struts are so weak they have bent every flying session. Sometimes they've bent more than once a session. Yeah, it's time to bend some out of decent piano wire or fit some shock struts.

Warbirds need a touch more care where their CG goes. Nose heavy can be good and bad.

blhollo2

My Feedback: (278)

had the same thing happen to me and it is torque from the engine, your thrust angle needs to be increased 2-3 degrees add right thrust and this will stop the torque roll.

gsoav8r

My Feedback: (6)

Bob, I think your on to the major problem here given the size of the airplane we're talking about. Weight.
The math suggest a wing load of 17 lbs x 16ozs / 6.04 ft^2 = 45 ozs / ft^2

Agree that its time to consider creative ways to get the functional weight shifted forward and lose the dead weight.

Anyone know if ESM builds any washout into their wings? That would be a plus if they did.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

ESM line of warbirds is something you like or hate. In my opinion only they are a disaster waiting to happen. I built two and now I'm down to one. The first was the FW190 and I lost it due to in-flight radio failure. The second is a Hawker Hurricane that has never been airborne. I posted here on RCU about the airborne brick FW190 and received nothing but hate. My FW190 weighted about 18lbs powered by a OS160FX and once airborne flew in a realistic manner. I recently purchased a H9 Taylorcraft and it exhibited the same problem you encountered during your initial flight. What I discovered was that the fuselage was twisted and the appanage was misaligned to the wing. I shimmed up the empanage group on the left cradle and it flies better now but I'm still using right aileron trim. I think this is part of the problem in your case. The left and right stabilizer halves are joined using a tube insert that goes through the fuselage. I bet the alignment holes are not parallel to one another. The right horizontal panel is higher than the left and the plane rolls to the left.

splais

My Feedback: (25)

Well here is an update - can't believe this plane is still in one piece, so you see where this is going. Let me qualify something. I've had two Meister giant warbirds, the 50cc TF P-51, The WH 50cc F6F and a couple of 1/3 scale WWI biplanes. Nothing has given me the trouble this FW has; either i'm getting old and have lost it (probably partly true) or this is just one screwy plane. After laterally balancing, making sure tailwheel was dead straight, adding a little more weight to nose, went out for a second try this morning. Things were better than yesterday, but pretty much the same. I had a nice roll going, nice smooth throttle being applied, then wam, long before I was ready she tried to pop into the air and then stalled a little I think. Managed to get her down and stopped again without wrecking her. I did damage a wheel in the dirt on side of runway so can't try again until tomorrow.

I'm 99% sure I know what the problem is. This plane sits at a really high angle of attack when tail is on the ground. The plane is not going from fast taxi to tail up to flying; it's trying to go straight from fast taxi to takeoff. Today it happened so fast I didn't have time to try to hold it on the ground. It's like the minute the wind started to go over the wing off it went. Now I was a little gun shy this morning. TOMORROW I am going to try and get the tail up early and see if that helps me keep it on the ground until I can get some more speed on her. T

sensei

sensei

Do you all use an AOI meter during your assembly process, it is a great tool to use when assembling your ARFs or kit builds because it allows you to setup and know what your incidence is on every flying surface of the airplane, as well as your thrust line. Robart makes a good one or you can get a digital one through Chief Aircraft.

Bob

kahloq

Most ESM planes are excellent fliers and no where close to an accident waiting to happen unlike a small loud few always try to claim.

Splais...Im sorry your having difficulty. Mine doesn't do any of the things your talking about. I can ease into the throttle and get the tail up usually without difficulty and get the plane running down the runway on its mains for quite some time. It will take off only when I apply elevator to make it break ground. I would really like to know where you have the CG measured, because what your describing seems to me to indicate a tail heavy situation still.

Sensai...there is a lot of weight on this plane because it HAS to. The super short nose requires a lot of dead weight to get the balance correct. There is no way around this because the plane is shaped mostly scale. The real plane had a big heavy radial up front....but when then D9 was introduced, the nose got considerably longer because the jumo 213 inverted v12 obviously is longer then a radial, but doesn't weight as much. The tail section was also lengthened.
But with the 190A radial version of the plane, there's very little room to get weight up front on a model. Our gas and glow engines don't scale up weight wise, so a crap ton of dead weight is a necessity.

My ESM fw-190A flies just fine with a ton of weight up front. All told, ive probably got 2 pounds of dead weight, plus rx batteries, onboard glow, throttle servo, motor, all in front of the firewall.

My 89" Spitfire(not ESM..but would be the same) will require close to 5 pounds of LEAD to get balance. These are warbirds, not pattern ships. Anything scale shape for a warbird will need dead weight. The real spitfire had 133 pounds of dead weight ballast up front.

splais

My Feedback: (25)

You now I was thinking that very thing about the CG. Right now I have everything forward plus about 17oz of lead on engine mounts. I am going to check exact CG when I get home tonight. I think right now I am closer to 140 than 130. But I just couldn't make myself put more lead on her. Well now I'm not so reluctant

sensei

/quote]

You know, we were all have a nice conversation with no name calling until now, when I post information on RCU and other giant scale forums, it is based on over 45 years of designing building and flying R/C and full scale experience behind it. What I print is always aimed at food for thought only, So when you come in here and call some of us loud mouths and then go on to let us know how how things work with aircraft with your vast 8 years of assembling and flying ARFs... Give me a break, you are so out of your league, you started your post with how excellent this brand of ARFs fly, the truth to some of us is you most likely don't know what a great flying airplane really is because you are just not there yet. LOL. Adding that much lead to a full scale has nothing to do with how the scaling effect is working against you on a small model, go read about that in a book! Only true ignorance would come right out and state that all warbirds need A high percentage of lead in them...

ssautter

Don't y'all own flight simulators?

It doesn't hurt to find a scale-ship in your sim, set the adjustable parameters closely to your newly completed model, and fly the pre-maiden on your simulator.
This helps your thumbs, and your reflexes, become familiar with the quirks of anynew aircraft. More importantly, it helps buryyour habits with the old aircraft.

Happy flying.....

kahloq

Sensei
You got bent out of shape for no reason. I was not at all referring to you with the loud mouth comment. You took offense to something not at all directed to you in any way. Try re-reading. Every single thread about a 190, the same guy posts the same garbage about how bad ESM planes are, yet owns 1 maybe 2...but never has understood they are made to look scale(mostly) and not altered to fly better at lower weights by lengthening this or that as other companies do. The vast majority that have ESM planes have a good deal of praise for them while also mentioning they wish this or that was a bit better and Im the same way. I know they generally fly well because I have 9 of them. Its what we call experience my friend. Maybe try it sometime.
So when I say they fly well...I know that due to having flown them.
ME-109E(electric)
ME-109E
FW-190A
FW-190D9
DO-335
ME-110
Stuka B
B-25(95")
P-51B

You also said try removing weight...well...if you HAD this plane or have built 190's before...you would have never said that. Doesn't matter if you've got 45 years or not, doesn't make you or anyone an expert on a plane design they aren't familiar with. General characteristics sure, but you way overshot regarding this plane.

Maybe ive been posting here for 8 years, but its quite obvious you have zero clue what you talk of when trying to say Im out of some imaginary league you wish to dream up. Those here that DO know me ARE quite familiar with my experience with warbirds and maybe you should stop and actually listen instead of thinking you know it all.

Im the one laughing at you...so LOL back friend!!

BTW....I have a good number of warbirds from other manufacturers as well, not just ESM. I will admit though I don't have a lot of experience with pattern ships. They don't interest me. I have a couple, but rarely fly them. Im not into 3D.

invertmast

My Feedback: (23)

Fwiw,
I had (sold it) a 80" FW-190A model from bob holman. With a 9lb radial up front, it still required 6lbs of lead on the firewall to balance! It weighted 29lbs RTF and flew great. I installed a DLE-55RA on it for its new owner and it took something like 10-11lbs of lead to balance it, the only change was the motor.

skillet92

I would gather that you don't like top Flite warbirds either then? The gaint p51 has 1245 of wing area. There are guys coming in at 25+ pounds on this plane and all I ever hear is how good they fly. That puts some of these planes over 45 wing loading. I have the ESM 74" Corsair that weights right at 19 pounds and it flys good. You just have to understand that they are not Extras or edges. You actually have to fly them. I have this fw190 and learned the hard way on the first couple of flights. It wants to come off the ground quick. Quicker than she is ready to. I use lots of rudder and hold her on the runway till the plane is trying to float. I also ease the power in to it so it does not ground loop on me. Of course I do this on all my planes. I also fly them to the runway and cut the last bit of power when it gets in ground effect so it will settle in for a perfect wheel landing. All of my warbirds have high wing loading except for my h9 150 mustang. It at 80" wing came in just over 15 pounds and just floats. Could get spoiled by that one. Lol

sensei

You Stated,

Sensai...here is a lot of weight on this plane because it HAS to. The super short nose requires a lot of dead weight to get the balance correct. There is no way around this because the plane is shaped mostly scale. The real plane had a big heavy radial up front....but when then D9 was introduced, the nose got considerably longer because the jumo 213 inverted v12 obviously is longer then a radial, but doesn't weight as much. The tail section was also lengthened.
But with the 190A radial version of the plane, there's very little room to get weight up front on a model. Our gas and glow engines don't scale up weight wise, so a crap ton of dead weight is a necessity.

You did not make your rude statement and then start a paragraph beginning with Sensei? I guess we all missed that. Are you so ignorant that you would really think that I have not built and flown my share of pattern, sport, and warbirds in the last 45 years, I own and fly a small ARF warbird right now when the feeling strikes. You also state that your not a 3D guy, well I will let you in on a little fact. None of us were into 3D back in the day, it didn't exist until around 15 years ago, and some of us were down right board with flying the same old routine and this presented a new challenge at the time, but you wouldn't know that would you now. The very first really good 3D demo I ever saw in person was at a warbird event I was attending at Bomber Field around 13 years ago, and I guess you didn't know that I at one point went every year to the big Bomber Field event, imagine this; I have even done my share of flying there. Back then the only things you would see at this event was either scratch or kit built. Now check this out, one year there was a very nice 5th scale P51 with retract that flew through the pattern very nicely, at the end of the flight the pilot pulled up front stage center into a torque roll for all to see. Now here is the kicker this WARBIRD was built very light and had no lead in it, I forget the builder's name now but A buddy of mine gave the Demo flight with the airplane. So you see, anything is possible for some.

Bob

kahloq

You placed your name in bold in an attempt to falsely claim I was being rude to you. YOU are lieing in an attempt to gain favor from others reading this and you know that. Then you make insultive remarks thinking you are the smart one. I could care a rats arse about what you have flown. I merely pointed out the facts about this plane and why it needs so much nose weight.
Dino Digornio is one of the best pilots in the country and hasn't been flying for anywhere close to 45 years....Same with Evan Quiros and many others. I am not claiming Im as good as them. I would not try to be as vain as that. Yet.....you think decades worth of time is what makes someone a decent pilot. You know NOTHING and it shows. You gave completely wrong advise to Splais on his plane because you don't know sh! t about this particular plane we are talking about. So shut up. You're coming off as an old fart that thinks they have all the knowledge in the world, yet more then just I have stated these ESM planes fly well and like warbirds because they ARE...not some light weight pattern ship made to somewhat look like a military plane. Now your mad and trying to paint me as the idiot because you got called out when you stuck your foot in your mouth. No one is listening to you...

sensei

I guess from my last comments to you it must have got your panties waded up just a little from your on line tantrum. I almost shed a tear... So you didn't type these words in bold that I quoted you on, and I am lying, I guess someone typed them for you. I think I now understand your logic, weight on on a warbird is a good thing because after all, it's a warbird and the basic rules of scaling, cubed loading, wing loading, reynolds numbers, and in general the aerodynamics of flight that applies to just about every other flying platform stands aside in the name of war bird... I'm good with that, great logic, you should work for NASA, hey I have some old fart friends still working at Dyden from the old days when I worked there, and I stay in contact with them even now. Would you like me to put a good word in for you? I think they are still looking for a few creative minds. It's been fun for a lazy Sunday, I do wish the best for the guy that is having the problem.

Bob

essyou35

My Feedback: (11)

Skip to 30 seconds. Granted it was a cross wind but on my maiden I did the same thing on a smaller warbird. I almost ditched it in the grass but decided to hit the power and full rudder and got LUCKY. Does this look like your take off?

http://www.youtube.com/edit?video_id=vfTufUWHF08&ns=1