Posts: 1628
Joined: 1/19/2002 From: Katy, TX, USA Status: offline
I would guess that someone could install retracts, but the model is not set up for them. As you can see, the nacelles slide into the wing. The main gear is bolted to two pieces of plywood that is bolted to the reinforced main spar. Thinking about it, I would say possible, but of course some rework of the nacelles and front wing structure would be necessary. As the nacelles are removable and the overlap part is to the bottom and the wheel did not really retract fully into the wing, it might be possible. Twinman
Posts: 701
Joined: 3/27/2002 From: Galesburg, IL, USA Status: offline
Mite it be an A-26 just a guess. Twinman I didn't have a problem with the nacelles it was with the cowels. The nacelles are just fine just the square looking jar bottom made into a cowel. Kindof reminded me of the photo of the cockpit of the original photo of this plane. Not very scale friendly. Guess a person could order a set of fiberglass one and add them to it
Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002 From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA Status: offline
Mug:
There was a squadron of Marine F7Fs stationed near Peking China in 1946 and 1947, Some "Unofficial" sorties were flown for Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalists.
That's where I first saw the Tigercat. Loved the plane ever since.
And your guess is correct, for whatever reason.
Bill.
_____________________________
Real Airplanes have Two Engines AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.
Posts: 322
Joined: 3/20/2003 From: Tucson,
AZ, USA Status: offline
I'll bet we start seeing a bunch of these around. If I wasn't already building a DS B17, I might be tempted to get one of these. Quick, easy way into a 4 engine bird, can't beat the price either.
Posts: 1797
Joined: 1/1/2006 From: Fort Collins,
CO, USA Status: offline
eam.net B-17 Less expensive...looks better and can fit glow engines if you want but is designed for electric. Also is designed for retracts. http://www.eam.net/EAMRC/bomber17/bomber17.htm
It is slightly smaller at 70" wingspan compared to 78" of the cedarhobbies one. I like the cedarhobbies variant fine, except the cowls are screwed up(amoung other things). However, the price is amost double that of the eam.net one which has a fiberglass fuse.
Posts: 1628
Joined: 1/19/2002 From: Katy, TX, USA Status: offline
kahloq Interesting kit. That one I did not know about,,,,,,,,but it seems to be a kit not an arf. Let me play,,NOT ARGUE, the other side of the fence. The post below on putting electric on the VQ P-38, and they are not the first, says it added almost $1200 to the cost of the plane. The video from Mookie 1 really got me thinking. It did take off as fast as my VQ with ST 90's and without the white knuckels of engine out..Now that is worth something big to think about. Now, I am NOT,,(no matter what the above bunch say), and expert on electrics and they ARE in my opinion coming. I would think that this four engine bomber would not use such large motors as the P-38, and so individually it would be less per motor, but more in batteries and controllers. I looked at the EAM kit you reference and I would question putting glow on that without major redesign and reinforcement. You would have to redesign the nacelles completely and where would you put the fuel tanks? Yes, you can put one tank and four engines. I did it on the early Cedar Hobbies prototype http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_2447788/anchors_2454095/mpage_1/key_four%252Cengines%252Cone%252Ctank/anchor/tm.htm#2454095 I also told Cedar. DO NOT DO THIS. It cost over $200 extra for pumps. If you look closely at that post, you will see the same type of slide on cowls as the eam. These also were abandoned due to poor appearance and fit problems. I AM NOT taking issue with the EAM, as I have not seen it. Perhaps they solved the overhang of the cowling on the wing and fit problems. More power to them. The new design over at Cedar does now allow access to the batteries on the top hatch, if someone wanted..(And MUCH more talented than me) to do this in electric. I would GUESS that there is no redesign to go electric. If someone, (NOT ME) is really into scale..pull off the covering and detail to your hearts content, but save the 100 hours getting to that point. MY TWO CENTS. Twinman PS It is alive and flying.. Write up to be posted on RCwarbirds.com soon.
< Message edited by twinman -- 5/23/2006 10:37:58 PM >
Posts: 266
Joined: 5/22/2003 From: Leominster, MA, USA Status: offline
The photos show that the wing has almost no dihedral Twinman. Is that an illusion? I should think it would be far more stable with the scale dihedral of 3 degrees. Mitch
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Twin & Multi Engine RC Aircraft >> RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question 
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question - 
Twinman I didn't have a problem with the nacelles it was with the cowels. The nacelles are just fine just the square looking jar bottom made into a cowel. Kindof reminded me of the photo of the 
well that and the Korean only combat...
