SrTelemaster150

It takes HP to turn high pitched props so that determines speed also.

hrrcflyer

Personally, I think a DA85 would be overkill in this plane and is just not necessary. My Buddy has a 3W55CS in his T/F FW190 and it has more than enough speed. I'd consider the DA60 for your Butcher Bird.

Take care,
David

JeffH

My Feedback: (43)

Speed = Cubic Dollars, how much do you want to spend?

These are warbirds that optimized to fly well, land slow and not have too many bad habits. To go really fast, you really need new structures, airfoils, etc. I am not sure that I would trust a TF ARF to an 85cc engine unless you did considerable work on the structure.

cubarican323

I know the da85 is probably way to much I was just hoping you guys would say it would work perfect. LOL I'm probably going to go with the DA60. And purchase a troy built or some plane that is fiberglass and can handle a beefed up motor. Thanks for the great Answers.

JeffH

My Feedback: (43)

I would serisously doubt that the Troy Built can handle the power any better, in fact I would think that the TF could handle it better. The ESM Warbirds seem to have pretty soft glass work and few formers. They look great, but have their issues just like all ARFs do.
If you want to go really fast, you should be looking into starting with a kit to properly modify as you build, or purchase one of the racing plane kits the Giant Scale air racers use.

SrTelemaster150

How wide is it, how long is it & how much does it weigh?

Thunderbolt47

My Feedback: (8)

True. However I saw a T/F P-51 GS with a G38 swinging a 17x14 apc prop. It was very fast. (est. 125mph) Not a lot of HP there.

cubarican323

I have the TP p51 giant with DLE55 it has enought power to push it around and do any tricks I throw at it but I was just looking for a lil more speed. Is the da60 compared to the dle55 have alot more power?

kahloq

A da85 would work ok in the Tf fw-190. Only had a bit of stew strength to firewall...no biggie. You need nose weight anyhow plus, the 85 could swing a bigger more scale size prop for the planes size. I have a 24x15 prop that would work quite well on that motor. Youd have killer speed,but mght be a tad hard to slow down for landings unless you cut the ignition on final.

You might also just consider a 60 and call it good. Eme has a 60cc that can be fitted with an electric start system. I have the eme 55 with that starter and only cost me $316 as combo price.

Thunderbolt47

My Feedback: (8)

Try an APC T-6 prop. That should solve your delima. Call them to order it. ($25)

My Stang has been clocked at 148mph in a shallow dive with a G-62.

SrTelemaster150

An inline engine P-51 will need a lot less thrust to reach speed than a radial engine aircraft.

Radial engine aircraft relied on 15%, in some cases 50% more HP to perform @ the same speeds as the lower HP inline engine aircraft.

Good examples would be the 1700 HP P-51 & the 2500 HP P-47. Both had similar top speeds, but it took 47% more HP to make the round engine plane reach that 430 MPH top speed.

BJ64

Um....

The P51, fully loaded, came in at around 4 tonne - the P57 fully loaded was just under 8 tonne.

Would that make much difference, ya think ... rolleyes:

BJ

cubarican323

With the apc t-6 20x15 will I over rev or bend the shaft on my dle 55? I'm running a 22x10 on it right now.

SrTelemaster150

Radial engine planes are by design usually heavier since they must be much larger in displacement (2800 cu in compared the the Merlin's 1650) to make much more HP to develop enough thrust to overcome much larger drag factor, Ya think.....

Take another R2800 powered aircraftb that equals the p-51 in air speed, the F4U Corsair. The empty weight for fhe Corsair was 9205#, just 795 less than the P47. That 9205# is still much heavier than the P 51's 7635# empty weight. ver 1500# lighter.

The reason why the Luftwaffe didn't favor radial engines was because of the increased drag of the round engine.

Thunderbolt47

My Feedback: (8)

You will not over rev. The extra pitch will keep it from over revving.
My G-62 turns 7600 on the ground.
I ran one on a DLE-50 too plenty fast also.

BJ64

If the radials were such a pig, how come there were so many of them around by the end of the war...??

BJ

dasintex

My Feedback: (10)

Hmmm....TF GS FW190 ARF Discusion Thread now a Full Size Engine Discussion Thread and before that was starting stand options....just saying

SrTelemaster150

You are beginning to act like some others here used to act,

You are so sure that anything I post is incorrect so you proceed to make false statements & put words into my post that are ludicrous.

The point I made, which is a well know aerodynamic priciple that you seem incapable of grasping, is that radial engine aircraft have far more drag than inline powered aircraft. That should not be as hard to grasp, & if you would just quit trying (unsuccessfully) to prove me wrong, you might just have an epiphany.

Since radial angines can be configured to have a lot more displacement than practicle sized inlines, that drag can be overcome W/increased power output.

You are starting to make yourself look foolish. Just do some research on aerodynamics as they apply in this case before you put your foot in your mouth again.

Radial engines have their advantages, that is increased reliability due to the air cooled configuration & greater power output. They are capable of shorter take off rolls in many cases due to the huge displacment & power output. That is why, during WWII the Navy always chose radial powered aircraft. Inlines have the advantage of a more streamlined shape in the final aircraft design so they require less HP to achieve a given level of flight performance.

Just look how inline P-51s dominate Reno. Now I expect you to take offense & try to prove me wrong by pointing out some of the Bearcats & right after WWII, the "corncob" Corsairs. Fact is, for every round engine planes you see @ Reno unlimited races, there will be @ least a dozen inline powered aircraft. The same can be said for victories.

So, see if you can keep an open mind & comprehend what I was trying to point out in the 1st place. I'll simplify the terms for you.

For a given airspeed, it takes more power to push an airplane W/a big, flat, round disc on the nose that it does to push a pointy nosed airplane through the air. Stay calm, think about that for a minute before you fire off a post pointing out my error & you just might see what I'm getting at.

SrTelemaster150

Well it does go back to the fact that the FW190A was one of the few radial engined fighter in the Luftwaffe.

I'm over dtrying to pound simple proven aerodynamic priciples into a stone, so I'm done W/that line of discourse.

Thunderbolt47

My Feedback: (8)

I was just trying to answer a prop question.

Ramstein44

My Feedback: (157)

Sorry, I had to block several of those that just like to rant and talk about frivolous things not related to this FW190 ARF and it characteristics. It's nothing personal but it's and ARF, designed to be kept as simple as possible and all that other nonsense (scale crap) is just that. JMO. Please gents, either build it, modify it or just build and fly it and post but lets not complicate the plane anymore with pointless banter if possible. I know I put my special touches on mine but I just did it and posted; I didn't have a freaking class on it or why as most of us here know how the real deal was.

SrTelemaster150

Lets talk about appropriate RADIAL model engines for the Wurger.

I have procured a lightly used FA450R3D for my Shrike. In the present configuartion, the big Saito triple requires a set-back of @ least 1/4" to align properly W/the end of the cowl. Since I'm going to use the SiST cooling fan/spinner combination on my plane, this is particularly important. I was going to set-back the firewall to accomplish this.






I had decided to do an FW190A5 Graf color scheme.




When doing research it dawned on me that to be correct, I needed to extend the nose @ least 1 3/16".





That's when I had my own epiphany!

If I extend the nose, that solves my set-back problem. I can extend the nose the proper amount for a scale appearance & add shims behind the engine mount to fine tune the fan placement in the cowl opening.

Furthermore, W/over 6# of Saito radial hanging another 1" forward, CG adjustment might not require any added ballast. That's my next project, hanging the en gine on the existing fiewall W/3/4" standoff.

SrTelemaster150

And all I was pointing out was that it would take more HP to get speed out of a round engine aircraft compared to all the P-51s that were being cited.

It's a fact of the laws of physics.

You can't compare apples to oranges & expect the same level of performance from a prop.

flyme2moon

My Feedback: (1)

Hey, BJ.... After looking at my notes, and for several years, I belive that Radial engines were less costly tto manufacture than inline engines , radial engines were also used to power tracked vecihiles and later some of the sikorsky helios, you could probebly count one one hand all the different air craft models that used inline engines, I atribute that to the high cost of casting a engine block and the machining of that same block , also consider the forging of the crank and cam shafts, wheres as a radial engine has far fewer castings and most of it can be done on a lath and vertical mill , also of note is that the navy used railroad diesel locomtive engine in some landing craft such as LST's ... We as a country used what we had and didn't have to reinvent the wheel....

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

IMO the DA 85 is too big. They tend to vibrate a lot and shoehorning it into this airframe would most likely be a disappointment. Scale sized prop aside ( very irrelevant issue IMO) Go with a 50-60cc engine, throw on a 22-10 and go have fun. A fellow club member had an 85 in a 1/5 scale P47 and replaced it with a 60 as it was just not suitable for the size of the plane.