RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RC Airplanes] >> RC Warbirds and Warplanes



Message

ramcfarland -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/6/2005 11:22:48 PM)

Looks nice ,wheels too small it seems but not much of a selection and NO diamond tread tires like so many Thunderbolts are pictured with.The Moki 210 pulls a friends glassed and painted Top Flite GS P-47 nicely.[8D]



ramcfarland -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/7/2005 11:25:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: olstoney

Nice looking scheme and I'm going to keep my eye on this one as well[;)].
Well I do not have flees GOSH!!!!!!!



Build-n-flyer-RCU -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/7/2005 12:10:51 PM)

It looks like H9 really listened to us about the P-51's shortfalls. Over 80" and the retracts and struts look they will work 250% better. I wonder if they beefed up the gear rails (another huge weakness on the 150 'Stang).

I also hope that the manual is better. All the obvious steps were provided in the Mustang manual, but there were a bunch of critical "tips" that could only be found here on RCU.



paladin -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/7/2005 4:11:15 PM)

I am concerned by the retract rails shown in the manual. They look to be two layers of Lt ply, While it will handle most of our landings it will never stand the test of time. I have a Magnum 41 (now know as the USA 2.5) that would fly it nicely. But I have decided that I must be more diceplined in my ARF buying. I'm Tired of spending 20-30hr putting the thing togeather, then spending another 10-20hr retightening covering and fixing things that don't work as intended/expected. After the second year It usually needs to be recovered to the tune of another 10-20hr.

Compaired to a model I build intending to use as a fun scale/practice model meaning plastic covering and CRS struts takes from 40-80hr (flop tite small to flop tite big model). By the time I buy the retracts (I want), wheels (I want), fuel tank and covering the cost is about the same. Added bonuses are that I can build all the lanning gear covers and hatches out of fiberglass, the landing gear front rail will be made of maple and be glued to ply doublers.

I'm sorry I had to do this to keep from pulling my visa card out of my wallet.

Joe



mugenkidd -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/7/2005 5:08:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paladin

I am concerned by the retract rails shown in the manual. They look to be two layers of Lt ply, While it will handle most of our landings it will never stand the test of time.



That remains to be seen, they look plenty of sturdy to me, and since no one has actually seen them its all speculation but I can say that I had the WM 80in mustang and have flown the stock retracts for about 2 and a half seasons with no proplems. And these retracts appear to be a hell of a lot better than the world models retracts. But then again some people do tend to land a lot better than others.



Capt G -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/7/2005 7:21:10 PM)

Paladin - note to self - don't buy one.



LDM -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/7/2005 9:37:40 PM)

Terry , I agree , I think from the pics and ad in the recent Fly RC , H9 may there mark on this one , the flaps look good , retracts seem to be designed with good thought , wheels are small but overall the P47 looks like a good bird . Considering the cost , I guess there on the mark , I also do agree that the engine suggestion seems under powred unless the airframe is exceptionally light witch is good and bad . I think there 60 to 90 size birds are great with the exception of the very light designed front ends of the planes .



Hellcat716 -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/8/2005 4:44:13 AM)

Paladin- I think this P-47 will be one of the best GIANT scale ARF's ever released.



P-51B -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/8/2005 1:29:38 PM)

Paladin,

I, for one, appreciate your observations. While some may consider it bashing, your concerns about the rails should be posted. After all, that's what these forums are for, discussion about the products.



wantitbad -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/12/2005 12:00:45 AM)

This plane looks great,I have a TF p-51 arf that I am very happy with,I also have a hanger 9 p-51 and the new p-40 both of which have a foam turtledeck I really like thier planes except for that I hope this one is not like that



paladin -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/12/2005 2:34:04 AM)

Not to beat a dead horse but I have a friend that bought his first warbird three summers ago, A hanger 9 P-51D. I showed him how to add flaps and I taught him the right way to fly warbirds. That ment there where the usual share of super sonic landings until he got the hang of elevator controls speed (pitch), and throttle controls rate of desent. For a total of around 60 flights before the front landing gear mount broke out. It broke out on one of the softest landings, which is typical of light ply.

We had talked about this happening while we were installing the flaps. It was not a matter of if, but when! The problem has nothing to do with the design and everything to do with materials selection. Basically The problem is this, the landing force with a standard LG mounting system puts the front mount in a tensile load and the aft mount in a compression load, all materials are 3x stronger in compression than in tension. This translates into the ply plate by the screws, creating a point of high stress concentration. Over time this stress concentration breaks down the bond between the layers of the ply, that allows more movement in the mounting rail, which speeds up the breakdown of the ply, until final failure. Those of you that have removed ply landing gear mounts can remember back and think about how much ply was still left with the plane. When I build a model I use maple engine mount material in this location (front only).

If you buy a plane with Lt ply landing gear mounts they will last for about 40 flights. The gentler the landings the longer they will last. If you want to respond to this and tell me I’m all wet take the time to write hanger 9 and tell them also. But the question is do you want it RIGHT or adequate! That is what the ARF manufacturers need to know.

Joe



lownloud -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/12/2005 3:52:05 AM)

Paladin, you havnt seen the plane yet and its already inadequate? Simply pull the covering off the area and epoxy or glass the retract bay and go flying. I'm sure who ever designed those retracts (and they look pretty damn good to me, or at least a step in the right direction) thought about beefing up the area they will be mounted to. If they didnt, I will do it myself.

I think all your assumptions and calculations are right.

I would still rather reinforce the landing gear than build the whole f#*king plane.



MANFRED -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/12/2005 4:02:51 AM)

40 flights? GOd I'm bored to DEATH with a plane by 40 flights!!!



Bob101 -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/12/2005 5:54:18 AM)

Heh you "scale" pilots. A good pattern can guy or IMAC competitor can put that many flights on a plane in less than a week. I know I put 6-8 flights a day when I fly (3-4 in the morning, 3-4 in the afternoon) 4 days a week or so.

Just found that comment funny.



MANFRED -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/12/2005 2:39:02 PM)

Some of us younger whipersnappers have to work all day. In at 8 home at 7 or 8.



stuk_at_work -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/12/2005 3:08:51 PM)

So many planes, so little time (& dollars!). This planes does have all the markings (pun intended) of a very successful design for H9. I would like to see better pictures though. The one (and only one) on Horizon's website is a little on the small size, even in the "enlarged" view.



oriole -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/12/2005 9:29:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TLH101
i am little concerned about the power recomendation though. I have flown a few Warbirds and i really think it will be marginal at best with a G-26. The Saito 2.00 may work well though as that is quite a bit more power than a G-26.


I don't think Saito manufactures a 2.00. Perhaps you meant the new 2.20. Looks like a little surgery maybe required to fit this in the cowl, as opposed to the 1.80 which should drop right in.

Oriole



DrDeath -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/13/2005 1:46:22 AM)

I love all of this, the plane is under powered, the plane isn't built strong enough, the plane the plane the plane. Sounds like Tattoo of Fantasy Island![:@]. Has anyone seen the plane in person? If so, then your statements or assessments may be valid, but here we are questioning the plane and we haven't even seen, flown or even opened the box! Man, are we a trip!

Let's reserve all judgments on how the plane is built or will it fly on the G26 until the plane is actually in our hot little hands. I have seen a GSP 109 fly on a G-26 and it flys like a bat out of H#$L! The one comment that I agree with because we can see it based on pictures and the manual is the fact that the gear looks a little small. But other than that let's wait until it is in our LHS!!!

So, let's wait until we actually see the plane before we make our disparaging remarks.

DD



mugenkidd -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/13/2005 3:35:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DrDeath

I love all of this, the plane is under powered, the plane isn't built strong enough, the plane the plane the plane. Sounds like Tattoo of Fantasy Island![:@]. Has anyone seen the plane in person? If so, then your statements or assessments may be valid, but here we are questioning the plane and we haven't even seen, flown or even opened the box! Man, are we a trip!

Let's reserve all judgments on how the plane is built or will it fly on the G26 until the plane is actually in our hot little hands. I have seen a GSP 109 fly on a G-26 and it flys like a bat out of H#$L! The one comment that I agree with because we can see it based on pictures and the manual is the fact that the gear looks a little small. But other than that let's wait until it is in our LHS!!!

So, let's wait until we actually see the plane before we make our disparaging remarks.

DD


GSP 109?? does that exist?? I see an FW 190.. and that plane is a lot smaller than this P-47, I dont think GSP makes any warbirds that are right about 81in, all of theirs are around the 70in mark or way bigger like 90in+, this plane is similar in size to the WM giant planes and the Hanger 9 150 mustang. You can look at the specs of a plane (wingspan-weight) and tell what kind of power plant would be good on it if you are an experienced modeler and have flown planes of similar size and weight. Which I have, and I'm sure several others have thats how we can be of the opinion about the power plants. I don't know about you but planing a new project is almost as good as buying it, if you don't like to plan then just don't type until you bought it and gives us "your" indepth review......



DrDeath -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/13/2005 3:12:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mugenkidd


GSP 109?? does that exist?? I see an FW 190..



Fat fingered the numbers. Sorry for the type - O. Anyway, my point deals with the fact that just because another plane by a vendor had some deficiencies doesn't mean that this one will. My point is that Hanger 9 seems to be pretty accurate with their engine recommendations and has probably designed, built and tested this plane around that engine. The point here is planning is one thing but giving uneduated opinion based on incomplete information such as the plane isn't going to be strong enough based on the P-51 isn't planning it is Bashing.

Plus the 190 came in at around 15 pounds based or so. Spitfire MK can verify this as it was his plane. Give or take a pound that will give you a higher wing loading on the 190 than the P-47.

Just one man's opinion

DD



BadLemon -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/16/2005 5:08:59 PM)

Just checked on the release date on the P47 and Hanger9 changed it to late September. Bummer!!! But not surprised.



hellcat56 -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/16/2005 6:19:37 PM)

Hey bob101
I agree with you those scale guys only get a few flights with their heavy, detailed, retractable land gear planes
While those pattern or IMAC pilots get many many more
Those scale guys should go back to planes that fly like trainers--they should fly very simple planes like most pattern or imac planes which only have four channels unless they have the extra switches activated that fly the manuevers for them
Those scale guys usually start at 5 channels some have as many as nine different functions they use.

You really cant compare a scale planes with the more simple easy to fly planes like pattern or imac
Have you ever seen a different or unusually pattern or Imac plane they all look alike maybe different trim thats about it.

Scale usually has a very high wing loading-and fly on the wing, like real airplanes-

IMAC wing loading is like a cub and they fly by having a giant way toooo big motor
To each his own.



paladin -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/17/2005 3:00:20 AM)

bla, bla, bla!

Prove me wrong and I'll buy one!

I may buy one any way, but it has to expext to get flown about 20 times a month may to sept.. I saggest you doughters look at the destructions manual and blow up on the retract area's. It looks like two layers of ply for retract mounts, the H9 P-51D had three layers of Lt ply and was foamed and CAed once a year, it lasted sixty flights. It does not take rocket science to figure out what will happen with twice the weight on 2/3 the Lt Ply. I hope its not Lt Ply. I hope I'm proved wrong!!!!!!!!

Joe



daw -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/17/2005 4:49:08 AM)

I saw this plane fly last night. Our club was honored to have Mike McConville put on a demo of a couple of the Hangar Nine planes. He flew the Showtime ARF WOW!!! He flew the P-47 and the new P-51 Trainer. The P47 is a beautiful plane Ultra cote was perfect. The engine was a Saito 1.80 and it powered the plane with authority and sounded good! The retracts have a very short arm from the servo to the retract that should prevent the normal binding and bending. The plane flew great and really looks good in the air, slow rolls and high speed low passes brought wows from the members. Full flaps slowed the plane well without bad habits. This thing coming in all dirty gives you chills. Of course not all of us can fly like McConville but a close up look at the plane shows that H9 did it right. Mike is a great guy, he flew a couple of member planes just for fun. He even maidened an older H9 Mustang rebuilt by a rookie warbird pilot. I don't think Nick will ever forget that. Thanks Mike! WOW!!!!!!!



Bob101 -> RE: New 81" P-47 ARF coming from Hangar 9 (8/17/2005 4:55:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellcat56

Hey bob101
I agree with you those scale guys only get a few flights with their heavy, detailed, retractable land gear planes
While those pattern or IMAC pilots get many many more
Those scale guys should go back to planes that fly like trainers--they should fly very simple planes like most pattern or imac planes which only have four channels unless they have the extra switches activated that fly the manuevers for them
Those scale guys usually start at 5 channels some have as many as nine different functions they use.

You really cant compare a scale planes with the more simple easy to fly planes like pattern or imac
Have you ever seen a different or unusually pattern or Imac plane they all look alike maybe different trim thats about it.

Scale usually has a very high wing loading-and fly on the wing, like real airplanes-

IMAC wing loading is like a cub and they fly by having a giant way toooo big motor
To each his own.



What does any of that have to do with fligh time?

It's pretty easy to pick out at meets/fly-ins. You see a really big giant scale plane and it flies like crap...sometimes you ask and it's been flown 3 times in the last year. You wonder if it's flown only 3 times a year because it flies like crap (based on a scale design that didn't translate well) or does it fly like crap because it's flown 3 times a year.....

See my point.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   next >   >>  

Valid CSS!




SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.
0.484375