RE: A Few More Minor Details  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> User Product Reviews >> RE: A Few More Minor Details
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A Few More Minor Details - 12/17/2003 12:34:43 PM   
ZERODOWN



Posts: 196
Joined: 3/8/2002
From: Macon, GA,
Status: offline 		Check out this exhaust system for your P-51, Makes me want to buy one so I can add this.

http://www.jtecrc.com/scaleStacks.htm

(in reply to JuzPlaneKrazy)
       Post #: 26

RE: A Few More Minor Details - 12/19/2003 12:02:07 AM   
BadBill



Posts: 102
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Centerville, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZERODOWN

Check out this exhaust system for your P-51, Makes me want to buy one so I can add this.

http://www.jtecrc.com/scaleStacks.htm


Ahhh, You'd probably need to sell your Jet to pay for it


_____________________________

Bill Davenport
AMA 28141

(in reply to ZERODOWN)
       Post #: 27

Long term Update - 1/6/2004 1:37:16 PM   
splais


 

Posts: 2711
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		I have been flying the P-51 for a while now. the DA50 is breaking in nicely and purring like a kitten.

I did want to bring everyone up date on one problem. Early in her life I had a hard landing that broke out one of the retracts. The retract mount snapped clean out, breaking all the plywood support structure. I repaired it and have had nothing but trouble with this ever since. Right now my plane is in the shop having the entire retract mounting blocks rebuild to withstand the weight of this plane on bad landings.

My suggestion to anyone building this ARF is to slop epoxy everywhere you can reach inside the mounting area and to soak the plywood support structure in CA also, to strengthen everything up. Please keep in mind I have a developmental set of Sierra Precision Retracts with somewhat heavy scale wheels in mine. I suspect that the Robart gear with their little metal drop-in box and plastic wheels may distribute weight better than mine; but I would still do the epoxy thing everywhere I could reach. I'll try to post some pics when I get a chance.

Steve

< Message edited by splais -- 1/6/2004 1:48:43 PM >

(in reply to BadBill)
       Post #: 28

RE: Long term Update - 2/1/2004 7:26:28 PM   
rcavi8tor



Posts: 14
Joined: 11/16/2002
From: Topeka, KS, USA
Status: offline 		Just read your review. Good in depth detailed information. Your review in itself was a good bit of work. Noticed you used a 3" standoff for the engine. Where did you find these? I am in need of a 2.75" engine extension for a 100 cc.

One comment I might make since this was your first gas engine is about the spring on the throttle arm of your carb. You said correctly that it put a lot of pressure on the servo and you were going to remove the spring. If you haven't already done so, DON'T remove the spring, just unhook it from the arm and leave it on the shaft. This will allow the arm to rotate freely and relieve the pressure on the servo. If you take it completely off it will allow the butterfly and shaft to vibrate and wear out the hole in the body of the carb around the shaft and you will get excessive air leakage. In about 300 to 400 flights this will make it harder to choke and you will have to replace the shaft. In about a 1000 flights or so you will probably have to replace the carb. Don't ask how I know this, just trust me and go by the old saying "Learn from your mistakes". Walbro carbs were basically made for chainsaws and weed eaters which need the spring return so that's why they send them that way to everybody. By leaving the spring on the shaft it holds it tight so it won't bang against the body as much.

(in reply to splais)
       Post #: 29

RE: Long term Update - 2/2/2004 11:03:10 PM   
famousdave


 

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: Bradenton , FL, USA
Status: offline 		Splais,

Nice job on the commentary. I wish more people took the time to do this (including me), but time has a way of getting out from us. Your analysis and tips are very good.

You defnitely went the high end on the construction, nice job. I would be interested in what your final weight is, my guess it is pretty high and that might explain some of the troubles during landings.

I have built two TF Kits and I just finished setting up the ARF version for a friend. My first 'stang I used a Moki 2.10 in, and it flew like a dream. The second I used a ZDZ 40, it was overpowered and over complex, but still flew OK. Landings on the ZDZ plane were not nearly as nice as when I had the moki power.

On the ARF, my friend and I considered the DA (best engine there is as far as I am concerned, but really only good for 3D or IMAC). I am not criticizing your build at all, that is not my intent. I have noticed however that the build strength of this ARF is nowhere near what the build strength was of my full builds. The firewall was not pinned, not fiberglass, etc.. in other words it was built like a scale flyer and not a 3D or IMAC plane. That said, we concluded the DA 50 or any other massive power gas engine will eventually rip this airframe apart.


We really wanted gas on this plane, but the ZDZ and DA had too much power and it made the cowl cutting excessive. We went with a MOKI 2.10 That engine is a perfect match and it fits in the cowl. Very realistic, and scale performance. We went with Robart Mechanical Retracts, Hitec 625MG servos on all surfaces(digitals are overkill on this warbird) , JR low profile retract servos on the gear, hitec micro servos on throttle and choke and a new JR 7-Ch PCM receiver. We used a Bolly 3-blade prop.

We built it as light as possible and our weight was just below the low end of the weight range spec. Total cost = just over $1300 less transmitter.

This plane looks and flies fantastic, it is very economical (uses FAI fuel), and is very scale. While it may not be fanatical scale, all that other stuff like air retracts, aluminum wheels, struts, tailwheel and ignition batteries just open the door to one more potential to failure and it all ADDS WEIGHT.

I had over 250 flights on my full build P-51. I recovered it and sold it. It is still flying 3 years later. I built and sold another and it is still flying with its original owner. The ARF, well in 1 month we have put 20+ flights on it and it still looks like new. It screams at full throttle and lands like a trainer.

Anyone who is thinking about this plane- if you are going to err - err on the lighter side! A heavy plane with a lot of power will not be fun to land. Air retracts are nice, but man what a costly option. I have had 4 airplanes with Robart mechanicals, not one single problem over the years. Of course, I do some routine maintenance and replace noise servos regularly, but if they are rigged right they will work forever.

This MOKI powered ARF is one of the nimblest, fun to fly warbirds I have ever put together. I don't fly glow at all any more, but I am considering doing a custom TF P-51 build. I am telling you I might go back to a Moki if I decide to build it, that is how much I think that engine is right for this model.

A 19# bird with a Moki 2.10 will fly much better than a 25# bird with a DA 50 even though the DA has a better power to weight ratio.

DP

(in reply to rcavi8tor)
       Post #: 30

RE: Long term Update - 2/3/2004 1:29:56 AM   
P47 Thunderbolt



Posts: 346
Joined: 2/1/2002
From: Brighton, MI, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: desertpig

We went with a MOKI 2.10 That engine is a perfect match and it fits in the cowl. Very realistic, and scale performance.
.

DP


Hey DP:

What muffler did you use with the MOKI 210? I'm considering this plane and I have MOKI 210 lying around with an inverted mount J-Tech muffler. The J-Tech is quite slim so I hope it fits in the cowl.

(in reply to famousdave)
       Post #: 31

RE: Long term Update - 2/5/2004 3:35:47 AM   
flyinrain



Posts: 256
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Arlington, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Desertpig could you provide more details on the flight performance between the ZDZ 40 and Moki 2.1? I have been looking at both of these engines and was leaning toward the ZDZ. In data I have look at it appears the ZDZ and Moki both have about the same thrust of around 23-25 pounds. The ZDZ weighs 5 ounces more plus the weight of the battery which shouldn't be too much. The gas engine look good due to the savings in fuel cost. Right now I'm paying around $15/gallon for glow fuel.

(in reply to famousdave)
       Post #: 32

RE: RE: Long term Update - 2/5/2004 4:33:18 AM   
splais


 

Posts: 2711
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		Desertpig,

I feel a couple of responses are required. Nearly everything you said about weight, costs, etc is correct. But you must take into consideration what you are trying to do. For me, some nice touches to play with were more important than cost or weight. The air retracts are great and give a nice feeling of playing with the real thing. I also was not going to put anything but a gas engine in the plane and I have not regretted it all. I will never again have a plane with one of those glow guzzling giant glow 2strokes in it. As to the issue of the engine shaking the plane about. Who knows, but I have taken all the normal precautions and I don't think the DA50 has anymore vibration than the Saito 1.80 I have on my Ultimate. As to the weight and flying - this bird lands like a dream and has as good slowflight characteristics as anything I got. ( full flaps of course). I have gotten this bird way to slow a few times and have marveled it has not stalled or dropped a wing on me. The DA50 does not overpower the plane and it has the most beautiful deep throaty sound with the Slimline Pitts you have ever heard. Addionally, my approach was why build this beautiful plane and then cheap it out. Of course if money is a serious problem other options would have to be considered. It was also nice that my plane balanced perfectly with no added weight and no major adjustment of weight.

PS: I guess the great thing about this plane is the fact that you can do it for $1300 or go for the gold if you want to. Meets everybodies needs.

< Message edited by splais -- 2/5/2004 7:37:36 PM >

(in reply to flyinrain)
       Post #: 33

RE: RE: Long term Update - 2/5/2004 7:06:44 PM   
flyinrain



Posts: 256
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Arlington, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Splais did you really get your engine and muffler for $525? If so where the best price I've seen is $625

(in reply to splais)
       Post #: 34

RE: Long term Update - 2/6/2004 5:42:55 PM   
famousdave


 

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: Bradenton , FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: unsworthm

Hey DP:

What muffler did you use with the MOKI 210? I'm considering this plane and I have MOKI 210 lying around with an inverted mount J-Tech muffler. The J-Tech is quite slim so I hope it fits in the cowl.



unsworthm, I believe my muffler was either a J-tech or Slimline. It was a while ago. I remember I ended up taking a lot of measurements inside the cowl and then buying the muffler that fit best. Sorry I could not remember the exact muffler!

DP

(in reply to P47 Thunderbolt)
       Post #: 35

RE: Long term Update - 2/6/2004 6:00:49 PM   
famousdave


 

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: Bradenton , FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: flyinrain

Desertpig could you provide more details on the flight performance between the ZDZ 40 and Moki 2.1? I have been looking at both of these engines and was leaning toward the ZDZ. In data I have look at it appears the ZDZ and Moki both have about the same thrust of around 23-25 pounds. The ZDZ weighs 5 ounces more plus the weight of the battery which shouldn't be too much. The gas engine look good due to the savings in fuel cost. Right now I'm paying around $15/gallon for glow fuel.


flyinrain, no problem.

Believe it or not I think the speed performance was about the same. Since this is a warbird and not a 3D plane, I rarely used full throttle on the ZDZ. The only point I noticed where performance was better was in vertical uplines. The ZDZ had a little more punch and more or less unlimited vertical, where the Moki would eventually allow the plane to stall out, but that was nearly out of site.

I am with everyone on the cost of gasoline vs. glow. Glow also makes a real mess, but I won't go to gas on a scale plane if it will spoil the looks or the flight performance. The ZDZ and DA, and even Zenoahs will require significant hacking of the cowl, and IMO that is sacrificing the beauty of the bird. The top speed was nearly identical, the ZDZ had a little more power in the transitions, but unless you have flown pattern, you would not notice it. What you will notice is the extra 8OZ of weight. My Moki bird NEVER snapped on large elevator throws, but my ZDZ bird did. I had to take out elevator throw and use large amounts of expo to manage it. This is typical when you add a lot of noseweight and a big prop to a warbird. Landings on the ZDZ, while still managable, were a little 'hotter' than those with the Moki. Landing the ZDZ without flaps was downright "hairy".

As far as fuel, yes its more than gasoline, but I used 0% FAI fuel in the MOKI, which is about $9 a gallon. These engines run very well on this fuel.

I am not a big fan of glow any more, most of my planes are gassers - I have DAs and ZDZs in my Edge, Cap, Monocoupe(Zenoah) and Ultimate. My only glow engine is the Saito in my H9 P-51 60. As much as I have tired of glow, I can say that if I were to build another TF P-51, which I am certainly leaning toward, I would use the Moki over any of the gassers at this time. It is an impeccable engine and, if for no other reasons it lets me keep the cowl intact and it weighs less. The plane was much more nimble and 'lighter on its feet' than the ZDZ plane. Adding 5-8 OZ to this plane is like adding 2 -3 pounds to an edge. You will definitely feel it. Unless you have flown both as I have however, I guess most pilots will never know any better!

DP

< Message edited by desertpig -- 2/6/2004 11:17:53 AM >

(in reply to flyinrain)
       Post #: 36

RE: RE: Long term Update - 2/6/2004 6:11:02 PM   
famousdave


 

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/16/2003
From: Bradenton , FL, USA
Status: offline 		Splais,

I hope you know I am not slanting you for going "all out".. I agree that is the beauty of this hobby. I admit I have been guilty of spending way more than I should have on many a bird. I guess I am jealous!! Your P-51 is great looking and sounds like it flies great too.

My only point of posting here was to offer some insight to two different configurations as most people now discount glow in favor of the heavier gas config. Nothing wrong with that mindset , but since I have flown on both ends of the weight spectrum, I clearly notice better overall flight performance and low speed handling on the lighter glow config.

As far as the sound, well, you are dead right. No Moki could ever sounds as sweet as the DA, that's why DAs are in my edge and Ultimate.

Keep it in the air!
DP

(in reply to splais)
       Post #: 37

RE: A Few More Minor Details - 1/11/2006 2:11:32 PM   
splais


 

Posts: 2711
Joined: 12/12/2001
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		Wow, how time flies; it's been two years. for the fun of it, here is an update. someplace way up front I said these big warbirds were way to expensive and I would never do another.... I now own a 1/3 scale Pilot Pitts S2B, a 50cc Yak and a GP P-6E Hawk. I'm getting ready to do the new H9 P-47 with a 50cc engine and Solo 4-blade prop. Oh, well, I guess we never learn. My P-51 was sold over a year ago.

(in reply to famousdave)