Posts: 445
Joined: 4/27/2003 From: SydneyNSW, AUSTRALIA Status: offline
Heres a Spitfire pic from 1943. 457 Squadron R.A.A.F operated in Northern Australia, New Guinea and Borneo, against the Japanese. Known as "Grey Nurse" Squadron. Grey Nurse is a breed of shark in Australia. 457 had been based in Britain fighting the Germans, but was called home in 1942, when the Japs. were on our doorstep. Meanwhile back at the ranch, C.P.'s FW 190 awaits it's test flight...........John
< Message edited by vauxhall -- 1/5/2006 9:12:48 AM >
Posts: 10017
Joined: 11/22/2003 From: arlington,
WA, USA Status: offline
That's a mean looking shark face! The ALLIED planes won the battle of the graphics, hands down.
Flight report of the BUTCHER BIRD. It was fairly cold and windy. The plane hand launched with the AP wide open, turning a 6x3 APC. It was very twitchy in roll axis and touchy in pitch, to the point where it was flying me, not me flying it. The wind kept drifting it further away, and I could no longer tell up from down with that OD green on a drab day, so I planted it in the mud. It looked like a grave marker out there. Thankfully I was wearing barn boots, and sloshed after it. It was close to 500 feet away, near the range limit of the FEATHER RX. There was no damage, the prop was even OK. There was fine, sloppy mud packed into the cowl, and the servo tray had popped loose. After doctoring it and cleaning it, I wound some solder around the engine, and reduced the aileron throws to less than 1/8" either side of center. 2nd launch was much better, but the plane was still teetering in the roll axis. The roll rate was slow, but the plane was unstable in the roll axis. Too big of a fuselage, too high above the relatively tiny wing, gusts of wind proved to be destabilizing. What this plane needs is 4 inches of span added to each wing panel to help dampen this tendency. In pitch, the model seems fine now. The CG is somewhat ahead of 25% now. The landing was at a slow speed, into the wind, but it almost ran out of roll authority, it did land OK though. I was not happy with it's overall performance, the plane needs either less fuselage side area ahead of the CG, or more wing span, it could probably use both. I think the dimensions could be played with without the plane losing its' identity, just call it the stretch limo version that came out later in the war. I'll try it again on a nice day, but this planes' real future will be strictly ornamental in my barns' rafters. After all that work, all I gotta say is, "OINK"!!! Well, you win some, and some others suck, hopefully something gets learned along the way. I think the lesson here is that being faithfull to scale doesn't translate well with some model layouts, yes this thing flies, but not that well, not compared to a good "toy" plane.
Posts: 10017
Joined: 11/22/2003 From: arlington,
WA, USA Status: offline
PHLIP, If the handling qualities improve greatly while she is flying inverted, then the truth will be known as to why this thing flies like a balloon being balanced on a stick [right side up]. For pure sport flying fun, this plane could use 8 inches more span to help stabilize that big ol' top heavy fuselage. I might just do some surgery on it someday to see how much that would help. In the meantime, there is a 7 oz delta that requires medical attention [decapitated] . After that, I want to build something slick for the FORA, but not a DORA.
Posts: 10017
Joined: 11/22/2003 From: arlington,
WA, USA Status: offline
That would lower the CG, it might make the plane more stable? What adverse effects could it have? The only planes I've ever flown with lots of dihedral were high wing trainer / old timer types with rudder, elevator control. Too much dihedral might make this thing roll like a drunk fish? Right now it rolls slowly when commanded to roll, but it does it cleanly. The aileron torque arm linkage seems a little bit rubbery, I used 2-56 control rods. I wish they were stiffer, maybe they are contributing to the problem? I've used them before with no trouble though. I think more wing area would work wonders here.
Posts: 498
Joined: 10/4/2004 From: Downingtown,
PA, USA Status: offline
CP - Sorry to hear about the maiden, but am glad to hear that you still have something to display (and display it you should!) Not sure how your electronics are situated, but can you lower anything to help drop the CG? Inverting the engine would also help drop the CG.
Of course all of this makes me REALLY ANXIOUS about taking out my Zero, which has a whopping 125 sq in of wing area...
eroc
_____________________________
Nothing is impossible when you don''''t know what you''''re talking about
Posts: 1962
Joined: 11/2/2004 From: Marysville,
WA, USA Status: offline
I'd start by flipping the engine and cowling. Next, I'd add 1" to each wing and 1/4" dihedral to the new wing. To go much more on either, you wouldn't have a FW any more, at least in my opinion. Just my.02
Posts: 10017
Joined: 11/22/2003 From: arlington,
WA, USA Status: offline
EROC, your ZERO is basically the same plane I think., maybe not quite as bulbous? I would, [knowing what I do now] add 3-4 inches at each wing panel root, where it exits the fuselage. The greater span would also effectively lower the CG without resorting to "cartoon airplane" dihedral. There isn't any room to stow the gear much differently.
The OD green doesn't display too well in the air, it always looks like a sillouette. I would do it in a bright scheme if I could do it over.
The MUSTANG that I scratch built is very similar to this plane, except the fuselage isn't as top heavy and aerodynamically upsetting in a cross wind. The MUSTANG is rock solid to fly, roughly the same wing area, dihedral, tail volume, moments, etc. as the FW 190. It is slightly lighter [1/2 oz]. It has less side area above and in front of the CG, that's the main difference. The subtle difference is I made the MUSTANG wing with less taper than original, no part of its' chord is less than 4 inches. At the weight and speeds we fly at, chords less than 4 inches are worthless, the reynolds numbers are pathetic. Up to 12 ozs, 4 inch chords are still getting it done. There was a chart published in one of the model mags that pointed this out and it has always stuck with me. You can alter the chord and span of these scale planes without losing the flavor too much, and excellent flight performance is more important than having to endure snide remarks from scale purists anyday .
Posts: 642
Joined: 5/22/2003 From: Enumclaw,
WA, USA Status: offline
CP- Sorry all your hard work did not pay off too well. I would just shove the Fora in it and give it one last good run ... Maybe we can put some of these wing mods to the test on my 190.
Hey whats that I see in the background??? A box for an E-powered Yak !
Posts: 10017
Joined: 11/22/2003 From: arlington,
WA, USA Status: offline
Ya, it's not a complete POS, but I think it would benefit from 4 more inches at each wing root, and maybe more dihedral, that would smooth out the way it flies and give it a more positive feel. The original was carrying a little bit more weight in the wing, like cannons, ammo, landing gear, fuel, mechanicals, etc., so the real plane was balanced better vertically. Even so, most fighters I ever heard of had quirks that the pilots had to live with. Do yourself a favor, and do the wing mod., I'm sure it will improve the handling without spoiling the l
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> "1/2 A" & "1/8 A" airplanes >> RE: GUILLOWS' FW 190 
RE: GUILLOWS' FW 190 - 
. After that, I want to build something slick for the FORA, but not a DORA.
... Maybe we can put some of these wing mods to the test on my 190. 
!