RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> RC Combat >> RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 6/9/2005 8:39:05 PM

eljimb0

Posts: 15
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: portland, OR, USA
Status: offline

That is the plane, it is a Great Planes combat P51 (with mods)
jimbo

Attachments

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

...˚≤≥˚...
Ñ\ÕÑ§†∑R

(in reply to GalenB)

Post #: 76

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 6/11/2005 9:12:52 AM

chris b

Posts: 141
Joined: 2/1/2004
From: Portland, OR, USA
Status: offline

This may have already been addressed in this thread (i skimmed through!) i have a brand new OS.40LA laying around doing nothing, and i cant sell it, so do you think it would go ok in the Corsair? Extra power to handle extra weight? Ie: retracts, rudder servo, etc... If so, what prop for best thrust off the line?
Comments....

Thanks
Chris

_____________________________

Fly it, Race it, when it breaks, replace it...

(in reply to eljimb0)

Post #: 77

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 6/11/2005 7:29:17 PM

hilleyja

Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: Salem, WV, USA
Status: offline

All this talk about 40-size engines!!! This plane and the Corsair version are way too small for that size engine, even the LA version. 40-size engines are for 4-6 pound airplanes, not these 2-3 pound airplanes. I have already indicated above a problem with an OS .25FX essentially exceeding the airplane's envelope. If you want to rocket around the sky then put a 32 on it -- almost the same physical size as the 25s. You might even get a few flights on it before she disintegrates in the air. With the 40 she may disintegrate as soon as she leaves the ground.

BTW, I don't know if you can even find retracts small enough for this airplane -- you certainly don't want to use the ones designed for 40-size airplanes. I contemplated putting a rudder on my Corsair -- its doable and even already has the pushrod tube for it. One extra Hitec HS-81 on the CG point is not going to add enough weight to cause you any problems with a 25 or even a 15. If you can find retracts you will have a problem trying to mount the retract servo in the wing -- they don't make them the size of the HS-81.

< Message edited by hilleyja -- 6/11/2005 7:34:12 PM >

_____________________________

Jim Hilley
AMA #671825
RCCA# 758
Twist 150 Brotherhood #14

(in reply to chris b)

Post #: 78

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 6/11/2005 11:45:31 PM

raston

Posts: 95
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Status: offline

That's one man's (hilleyja's) opinion who in his previous post didn't know which came first... the crash or the striped servo.

Chris b, if you can fit it in the cowl, or even if you don't mind cutting a hole in the cowl for the engine to stick through, and you can balance the plane properly, you can do it. In fact, a 'low end' .40 like the LA would make hand launches a breeze using a 10x6 prop.

(in reply to hilleyja)

Post #: 79

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 6/12/2005 2:24:28 AM

-pkh-

Posts: 2295
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Emmaus, PA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hilleyja

All this talk about 40-size engines!!! This plane and the Corsair version are way too small for that size engine, even the LA version. 40-size engines are for 4-6 pound airplanes, not these 2-3 pound airplanes. I have already indicated above a problem with an OS .25FX essentially exceeding the airplane's envelope. If you want to rocket around the sky then put a 32 on it -- almost the same physical size as the 25s. You might even get a few flights on it before she disintegrates in the air. With the 40 she may disintegrate as soon as she leaves the ground...

Hmmm... lets look at the specs for these engines, shall we?

OS .25 FX: Weight: 8.8oz, Power: 0.84HP
OS .32 SX: Weight: 9.5oz, Power: 1.2HP
OS .40 LA: Weight: 9.5oz, Power: 1.0HP

Looks like they are all likely candidates to me... the OS .32 SX is 20% more powerful than the .40 LA! Remember, the LAs are cheap, lightweight, and inefficient, so eventhough they have relatively larger displacement, the have the weight and power output of smaller engines. Personally, I'd rather spend the $$$ and get the .32 SX... that little engine screams! I have one in a .25 sized SPAD that I built. But if you've got a .40 LA lying around and you can fit it into your cowl, I say go for it!

< Message edited by -pkh- -- 6/12/2005 2:28:34 AM >

_____________________________

Paul - Helis: Two Raptor 50V2s, Venture 30CP, Blade CX2
Planes: Twist 150, Twist 60, Tribute 36, GP .40 Mustang

(in reply to hilleyja)

Post #: 80

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 7/11/2005 3:00:55 PM

hilleyja

Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: Salem, WV, USA
Status: offline

I'm back up and running on my replacement Corsair and I still hold with my previous post. I'm running with an OS .25FX and a 3-blade 8x6 prop.

I have a GP Viper 500 with a Webra Speed 40, running an APC 9x6. It competes well in the 424 pylon race category; the only limiting factor is the pilot. I think my Corsair with the OS 25FX is even faster than the Viper.

I took care of the elevator problem by changing out the nylon gears for metal gears in the HS-81. I'm still running standard gears in the airlons.

Lets adjust this discussion a little:

With an OS .25FX I already have an airplane that is quite fast. What would moving up to the OS .23SX or OS .40LA improve on? More speed??? I'm already moving as fast as feels comfortable for this airplane. Has anyone noticed that both this Corsair and the P-51 tend to wobble in highspeed flight when any kind of wind is present? The tail surfaces are thin balsa sheets and will not stand up to the kind of Gs these airplanes can attain with larger/faster engines.

Comparison: my Corsair -w- OS .25FX and another club member with P-51 and OS .15CV-A. The Corsair is faster but not significantly so. The P-51 is not underpowered with this engine when running with an 8x4 prop. Launching is a little more difficult with the P-51; its takes a little more time to gain the airspeed whereas the Corsair can literally be released with a gentle underhand throw. I have the same OS .15CV-A but would not use this engine except for sport flying these models.

BTW, with the OS .25FX I am also still legal for Class 2610 Combat events. Since there is a .26 displacement limit your .32 and .40 and even the Magnum .28 are not legal.

_____________________________

Jim Hilley
AMA #671825
RCCA# 758
Twist 150 Brotherhood #14

(in reply to -pkh-)

Post #: 81

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 7/11/2005 7:32:06 PM

-pkh-

Posts: 2295
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Emmaus, PA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hilleyja
...With an OS .25FX I already have an airplane that is quite fast. What would moving up to the OS .23SX or OS .40LA improve on? More speed??? ...

You blasted the guy for considering a .40 LA he had lying around, claiming it was way too big and powerful for these .25 size planes... I was merely pointing out that it was in the same class (for weight and power output) as the .25 FX and .32 SX engines, which are both commonly used in .25 sized birds...

_____________________________

Paul - Helis: Two Raptor 50V2s, Venture 30CP, Blade CX2
Planes: Twist 150, Twist 60, Tribute 36, GP .40 Mustang

(in reply to hilleyja)

Post #: 82

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 7/11/2005 8:42:15 PM

borisp

Posts: 65
Joined: 5/31/2005
From: Zagreb, CROATIA (HRVATSKA)
Status: offline

Anyone experienced left torque roll on hand launch ?

I almost killed mine on first attempt because of that. Have OS 25-FX with APC 9x6.

Regards,
Boris

_____________________________

Boris

(in reply to -pkh-)

Post #: 83

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 7/12/2005 2:15:38 AM

rrh

Posts: 319
Joined: 11/16/2002
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Status: offline

Under hand or over hand? Make sure the wings are level when you let er go or it's going the way that you released er. It's always best to have an assistant launch er for you the first time. If your trim is nuts on there is no roll tendancys. It should just fly away like on a string.

rrh

_____________________________

Randy Hodges
RCCA 745

(in reply to borisp)

Post #: 84

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 7/12/2005 8:09:20 AM

borisp

Posts: 65
Joined: 5/31/2005
From: Zagreb, CROATIA (HRVATSKA)
Status: offline

Thanks for sharing experience. Over hand (at least for the first time). It needed 2-3 clicks of right trim in the air, so I also suspected that could be the reason. Assistant? You are right for the first flights, but later I would rather switch the model than having "nanny" any time I want to go flying. Just a way of thinking.

Regards,
Boris

_____________________________

Boris

(in reply to rrh)

Post #: 85

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 7/12/2005 2:56:46 PM

hilleyja

Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: Salem, WV, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrh

Under hand or over hand? Make sure the wings are level when you let er go or it's going the way that you released er. It's always best to have an assistant launch er for you the first time. If your trim is nuts on there is no roll tendancys. It should just fly away like on a string.

rrh

Definitely a helper for the 1st flight. Even subsequent flights are better with assistance in launch. I once launched my Corsair myself and almost lost it -- its hard to get a good level flight launch while holding your TX in your other hand.

_____________________________

Jim Hilley
AMA #671825
RCCA# 758
Twist 150 Brotherhood #14

(in reply to rrh)

Post #: 86

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 7/12/2005 3:15:53 PM

hilleyja

Posts: 2176
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: Salem, WV, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: -pkh-

quote:

ORIGINAL: hilleyja
...With an OS .25FX I already have an airplane that is quite fast. What would moving up to the OS .23SX or OS .40LA improve on? More speed??? ...

You blasted the guy for considering a .40 LA he had lying around, claiming it was way too big and powerful for these .25 size planes... I was merely pointing out that it was in the same class (for weight and power output) as the .25 FX and .32 SX engines, which are both commonly used in .25 sized birds...

I don't think I would use the words "blasted". You are correct that it is just MY humble opinion and IS based on personal experience. More of my humble opinion: The .25FX is definitely at the top end of power for this bird -- the .32SX is OVERKILL, only useful with throttle management. With the .25FX I have to be careful on full dynamic turns and full power straight flights -- the airplane wobbles at full speed (witnessed this with both the Corsair and the P-51) with just a little wind. With the .32SX, most of the time you will be flying at half throttle because full throttle will be too much. You are also right that the .32SX is a popular engine to max power a 25-size bird. Under most circumstances this is a good marriage, e.g., Tequila Sunrise. The .32SX is rated by OS to be stronger than the .40LA but, you can't dispell the grunt power that comes from cubes. The LA makes its power at a lower rpm range than the SX and as long as you stay with the larger props (10" or 11"

you will find both engines very comparable and at the upper range of props, the LA maybe a little stronger. Of course, if you slip an 8" or 9" on the SX look out -- the LA will be left way behind. This puts the .40LA in the same category as the .32SX on this bird -- OVERKILL. Again, just my HUMBLE OPINION. And, BTW, if all I had hanging around my workshop was an OS .40LA, I would mount it on this airplane and enjoy the hell out of it. Thankfully, I have other alternatives (OS .15CV-A, Magnum .28XL, OS .25FX, GMS .32, and even a Webra Silverline .40, all of these engines are useable -- BUT, the OS .25FX is the best of them all, IMHO)

< Message edited by hilleyja -- 7/12/2005 9:35:26 PM >

_____________________________

Jim Hilley
AMA #671825
RCCA# 758
Twist 150 Brotherhood #14

(in reply to -pkh-)

Post #: 87

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 7/12/2005 8:53:32 PM

Demon

Posts: 451
Joined: 4/10/2002
From: Ledyard, CT, USA
Status: offline

Knock off the attitude fellas. If you post an opinion, expect an opposing opinion. No harm, no foul but ALWAYS respect the opinions of others. Thanks.

To the matter at hand:

quote:

ORIGINAL: borisp

Anyone experienced left torque roll on hand launch ?

I almost killed mine on first attempt because of that. Have OS 25-FX with APC 9x6.

Regards,
Boris

Torquing to the left on launch is very common, especially with steep pitched props. My method of handling it is to launch underhand with the right wing a little low, and aimed slightly to the right of where I want it to go. The torque effect raises the right wing and swings the nose over to the climb-out path I want.

HTH,
D

_____________________________

Darin Bellis
RCCA 426

(in reply to borisp)

Post #: 88

RE: Great Planes Combat Corsair and Mustang - 7/12/2005 10:20:11 PM

borisp

Posts: 65
Joined: 5/31/2005
From: Zagreb, CROATIA (HRVATSKA)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Torquing to the left on launch is very common, especially with steep pitched props. My method of handling it is to launch underhand with the right wing a little low, and aimed slightly to the right of where I want it to go. The torque effect raises the right wing and swings the nose over to the climb-out path I want.

HTH,
D

Actually before the first launch I intended to go underhand. But then I felt the plane was slipping out of my hand so I changed my mind. I don't have a small hand, but when fuse is a bit oily, and with a full throttle on I was not feeling comfortable dropping the plane accidentally on the ground.

Since I flown the plane only once mainly cruising around on the half throttle, and with the new motor set up quite rich, I still can't tell do I have thrust to weight ratio close or greater than one. I am wondering because if it is, than underhand launch would be much easier with the nose up close to the vertical, and the plane weight mainly hanging on the prop.

Would like to here your words of wisdom guys, if any.

Regards,
Boris

Attachments

Click to see fullsize image.

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

Boris

(in reply to Demon)

&nbs