bmustang
Posts: 96
Joined: 1/31/2002 From: Nassau,
NY, USA Status: offline
|
1wing, you are off to a very good start. I had a Model Tech P51 that I made some extensive modifications to for better scale appearance and to change it to a P51B. I used a Super Tiger 90 and it flew very nicely at 10 lbs 6 oz. One thing, the wooden beam mounts for the engine were far to weakly attached to the fuselage. The vibration loosened them in only 3 flights. I filled in the spaces between the beams and the fuselage sides with some scrap hardwood I had around the house, both in front of and behind the so-called firewall and also added a piece between the beams behind the engine. Then I drilled and dowel pegged all these together - the fuselage side, filler piece, and beam on each side in 3 places (one going into that cross piece) and also 2 more pegs going thru the nose ring into the forward ends of the beams. No more loosening. The balance point called for in the instruction book seemed ridiculously far forward compared to other Mustangs, so I calculated my own 25% MAC and used that, and it worked fine. The model still had a tendency to go on its nose when landing, and I ended up adding some tailweight. Tried some tight loops and got no snapping, so the CG worked ok even farther back than where I started. The flaps on this model were wonderful - I got no trim change at all when deploying them, and they really greatly improved landings and also made them much shorter. It may not be worth the trouble to install flaps on your 40 Mustang, unless you really want to do it. When you test fly your Model Tech, just land without flaps until you get a chance to go up high and try them to see what happens on yours. I used separate servos, one for each flap, but there is a down side to doing this. If one servo fails and only one flap goes down, it will try to roll the airplane and you may not recognize immediately what the problem is. (Opposite aileron and put the flaps back up as fast as you can.) A picture of this model is in Frank Tiano's column in the March '02 RC Report magazine. p 53. Although I had some issues with the structural design and the inaccurate scale outline out of the box, this model does fly very well. Good luck with yours. Tom
|