RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk  
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 >> RC Airplanes >> RC Warbirds and Warplanes >> RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 4/25/2005 4:43:37 PM   
rc_for_me



Posts: 97
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Goodyear, AZ,
Status: offline 		Well, I just got off the phone with Horizon Hobby. Nice people but pretty non committal. Told me if I sent in the entire plane they would take a look at it (at least it will fit in a small box!).

I think I am going to be in an uphill battle to get the plane replaced. I really have no way to prove the stab was defective due to the extent of the subsequent crash damage. Perhaps the stab wasn't defective at all. Maybe they just build them that way and they don't hold up. But as a very experienced pilot and instructor, I can tell you that the airframe was well within it's flight envelope on all three flights before the failure.

I'm sure they hear a lot of sob stories about crashed airplanes due to equipment failure. I've heard several myself down at the club and know for a fact that they were pilot error. I think my only saving factor will be that I had five witnesses watching the flight and saw the stab part company. Hanger 9 will be getting the names and phone numbers of all of them along with my return.

At any rate, all you guys who are building or have built this plane, take a look at that stabilizer (better check everything) and if your even a little bit suspicious, fix it or send it back.

_____________________________

Jeff Nelson (RC_For_Me), Vice President,
Instructor Pilot, Arizona Model Cropdusters

(in reply to rc_for_me)
       Post #: 51

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 4/25/2005 5:30:19 PM   
RCKen



Posts: 14775
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Status: online 		rc_for_me,
Thanks.

_____________________________

The take off is optional, but the landing is MANDATORY!!
AMA # 712539 www.gettingairborne.com
Moderator- Beginner''s, Sport Flying, Off-Topic, & AMA Discussions
RCU Community Moderator

(in reply to rc_for_me)
       Post #: 52

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 4/25/2005 5:38:07 PM   
timothy thompson


 

Posts: 2761
Joined: 6/19/2004
From: saginaw, MI, USA
Status: offline 		well i just built mine and will not do any aerobatics until i hear more! My pica 1:5 scale does very well.

(in reply to RCKen)
       Post #: 53

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 4/25/2005 6:23:34 PM   
Dai Phan



Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/27/2003
From: Blythewood, SC, USA
Status: offline 		SeannyChen,

How does the CMPro P-40 look in terms of scale outline? How about the impregnated decals? Did they apply then clear coat over that? I am thinking about it as my future project. Dai

(in reply to timothy thompson)
       Post #: 54

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 4/25/2005 7:07:01 PM   
seanychen



Posts: 2914
Joined: 7/20/2002
From: Canton, MI, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RCKen

I've got a real quick question for the group here. I'm getting ready to do the Hanger 9 P-40 with a Saito 100 in it. I see in all the ads and a lot of pictures here that people are using a red spinner with a 3 blade prop, and have also seen a red spinner with a 2 blade APC prop. Couple of questions.

What manufacturer spinner is every body using for the red spinner that seems to have an aluminum backplate?

What prop combinations is everybody using on this motor/plane? 2 blade? 3 blade?

thanks in advance.


Hello,

I got a Pro-spin 3.5" 3-blade spinner, which is lathed from bar stock aluminum. Knowing I will be using YS 110 4-stroke on it, I doubt a plastic spinner will last very long.

I plan to use Graupner 14x7 3-blade prop.

With Saito 100, you can probably use the Graupner 14x7 3-blade. It has about the same load as APC 15x8, which is just a tad much for the Saito 100. But I think the 100 is able to swing it at around 9000 rpm w/ 30% nitro fuel.

Dai,
I have not seen the CMP P-40 in real life. Judging from the pictures in www.cmpairplane.com the fuselage outline looks good, at least it seems larger proportionally compared with the H9 P-40, which looks a little narrow.

As for their decal, if it's like their Zero, it's not impregnated. You have to apply it yourself. And there is no clear coat one way or another.

At any rate, you know who not to get the new CMP P-40 from...



_____________________________

E_Total = M*G*H + 1/2 M*V^2
When H=0, all of airplane's velocity becomes crash energy!

(in reply to RCKen)
       Post #: 55

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 4/25/2005 9:41:17 PM   
Capt G



Posts: 828
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: NV
Status: offline 		Mine is close to being ready. When I assembled the stab, everything looked fine. I hate to bring it up but you know that there is a warning about removing the covering to glue the stab on - not to cut into the balsa underneath. I have seen more than one plane fail at the seam because the covering was cut off too deeply.

(in reply to seanychen)
       Post #: 56

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 5/3/2005 7:20:58 AM   
Tony Pacini


 

Posts: 266
Joined: 1/11/2002
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		Hi, all-

Just got to the part where I'm supposed to glue the stab in and it seemed a bit flimsy so I came to the forum and looked for an appropriate thread: Bingo!

Went through the same thing with my TT Rare Bear (flimsy stab). Many have reported failures.

It would probably be fine with the smaller recommended engines and the stab is light enough that it should balance OK (with a small 2-stroke). I'm certain that a Y.S. .91-1.10 (or 1.20 as I plan to use) would be "iffy".

The easy part here is that it's a slab-sided stab covered in Ultracote and it will be easy to rebuild/replace. Just go down to your local LHS and grab some hard and heavy balsa and have at it! An easy afternoon of work and you'll have a stab you can count on.

I can't blame the manufacturer because many seem to be like this (flimsy built-up stabs). Most of us tend to overpower and that's where we run into trouble.

You know, one of those Y.S. .63s should haul it around just fine, and probably wouldn't over-power it.

New stab or new engine...............hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

5/4 update: the fuse and tail are VERY light and I'm afraid that a bigger YS (.91-1.20) would be too much for this ship without a few reinforcements. Remembering that the full-scale P-40 wasn't exactly a powerhouse I went with the YS .63 and look forward to scale-like performance without having to worry about it coming apart. I was able to move the tail servos into the wing saddle area because the engine is fairly light.

I'll save my 1.20 for the TT Rare Bear after I build a stronger stab for it!

I'll update after the test flights (expected this weekend)

< Message edited by T-pacini -- 5/5/2005 7:10:45 AM >

(in reply to Capt G)
       Post #: 57

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 5/3/2005 11:54:26 AM   
proptop



Posts: 4515
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: Rome, NY, USA
Status: offline 		Hi T-pacini...if you do decide to put a 1.20 (YS? ) in it, you'll be able to tell us if anything else is weak!

I was just thinking of the thinned spar in the wheel well opening, and wonderin' how many G's I could safely pull w/o a wing parting company. Some of the H9 Corsairs lost wings at that juncture.

I'm using a TT .91 FS and thought of maybe a Webra 1.20 but changed my mind and went back to the TT.

How do you suppose you/we could reinforce that area around the spar and huge retract/wheel opening?
I took the gear out and brushed some 30 min. epoxy all around in that area...I also removed an inch and a half of covering and glassed the center section to tie the skins together...

_____________________________

It's bad luck to be superstitious...
Revver Bro #77

(in reply to Tony Pacini)
       Post #: 58

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 5/3/2005 4:16:41 PM   
seanychen



Posts: 2914
Joined: 7/20/2002
From: Canton, MI, USA
Status: offline 		A few more things I noticed regarding stabilizer durability in general:

1) Have you ever watched the stabilizer when the engine is idling? On planes with big props? The rear end of the fuselage does twist/oscillate when the engine idles, and the stab just get flopped around. This is especially bad for larger planes, where idle rpm is slower, and prop impulses are stronger. I have a Cap 120 that already broke the tail brace twice. (I did go too light on the brace material).

2) When using ground restraint, have you seen people running the engine full throttle while placing the ground restraint against the tail? It is translating the thrust directly into loading the stab. I always place the ground restraint in front of the wing on smaller planes (<120 size) that's easy to pick up. On larger planes that I have to put the ground restraint in front of the tail, I always get behind the plane, hold the plane by the wing or fuselage before running the engine full throttle.

I have a YS 110 on my 2nd UCD 60, and I never cut the monokote off the tail. I opted for the bolt-on method w/o glue. I use point hinges for the tail to reduce the hinge resistance @ high deflection. Tail hasn't exploded yet. Maybe I should add the tail brace while I still can.

Many forces act to detriment the tail structure. I have concluded for myself that It is safer to over-build an area that has known failure. Just like 20 years ago when everybody was glassing the wing center sections. I don't see it anymore in ARF's now, but I don't hear wing folding in ARF's as often, other than blatant builder mistake of forgetting to use glue.

_____________________________

E_Total = M*G*H + 1/2 M*V^2
When H=0, all of airplane's velocity becomes crash energy!

(in reply to proptop)
       Post #: 59

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 5/6/2005 7:41:01 PM   
leetony


 

Posts: 23
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: , CA, USA
Status: offline 		Hi, I'm almost done with my P-40 with YS 1.10 engine. I have a question regarding the cowl. It seems like the cowl could easily cover the engine and the header pipe without cutting holes. Will it be too hot if I just leave it as is? Or should I cut more vent holes on the bottom?
Thanks,
Tony.

< Message edited by leetony -- 5/6/2005 7:43:00 PM >

(in reply to seanychen)
       Post #: 60

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 5/6/2005 11:04:14 PM   
Capt G



Posts: 828
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: NV
Status: offline 		Just had flight #6 today with YS.91. This plane, at 1/2 throttle is verrrry fast with Graupner 14x7 3 blade. It seems plenty cool enough without cutting the bottom of the cowl.

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


< Message edited by Capt G -- 5/7/2005 11:51:58 PM >

(in reply to leetony)
       Post #: 61

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 5/8/2005 6:58:06 AM   
Tony Pacini


 

Posts: 266
Joined: 1/11/2002
From: Prescott Valley, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		Test flight today!

YS .63 for power, 13x6 APC, Byron YS 20/20 fuel, elevator and rudder servos next to throttle servo (instead of in the tail), 1100 mAh battery and fuel tank in front of the servos (all under wing). CG came out at about 3 1/4 " (gear up) so I didn't bother to move anything around and didn't add any weight.

Even with the little .63 it flies with authority; it's not a hot-rod by any means but either is the full-scale version. It's got plenty of vertical, takes off smartly, and will make big loops from level flight. I'm happy with the powerplant and I don't think I'll be ripping the stab off any time soon. All that dihedral makes for really cool rudder turns, too!

A bonus of using the smaller powerplant is that the entire engine is inside the cowl with only a few holes for needle valve, fuel dots, remote glow, and exhaust extension (Aerotrend "BLueline" #1024 exhaust stack slipped over factory header, no muffler). It makes for a tidy installation.

The factory-installed retracts worked fine and sure looked cool. Ground handling was very good despite the narrow track and landings were an absolute breeze (no bounces) and the hard foam tires that came with the kit are ideal. Those at the field thought it was pretty spiffy and a few remarked that they'd "have to have one".

I totally dig it! Two thumbs up!

< Message edited by T-pacini -- 5/9/2005 3:58:34 PM >

(in reply to ROBERT101)
       Post #: 62

RE: Hangar 9 P-40 Warhawk - 5/9/2005 2:05:30 AM   
leeul


 

Posts: 61
Joined: 8/15/2002
From: Goodyear, AZ, USA
Status: offline 		I have 10 flights on mine now and I love it. Sure wish I could get pictures to post on this site I will have some real good ones soon, real low and inverted looks like the Speedworld sky will be filled with Hanger 9 P40s sooner rather than later and for good reason. I did no extra mods to the plane, the firewall, gear blocks and tail are holding up just fine. Saito 100 will get 5+ minutes of flight with stock tank.

Lee Ulinger

_____________________________

Lee
www.LeeUlingerModels.com

(in reply to Tony Pacini)