RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build  
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: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build
Page: <<   < prev  62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 70 71   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/23/2008 9:52:30 PM   
GSK


 

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/4/2007
From: Hamilton, NEW ZEALAND
Status: offline 		Hi Guys ,
Thanks for the response .

My problem is that having had a lot of experience over many years Designing and building the tooling to make Sheet metal products and the like ,I had greater expectations of the product after first viewing the Kit retracts. Or am I a victim of the advertising on the box

Quote " Hanger 9,s revolutionary HEAVY DUTY Retracts . ???? Now that Is false advertising and I presume In the USA Is Illegal is it not ?

So perhaps if I had known just how much an inferior product they were and the expense that they did put me through I would have reassessed my options before purchasing the kit .
I even bought a second set to replace the broken welds and cracked broken legs etc In the hope that I could make them last a reasonably time.
So when the Linkages started to allow the leg to extend and cause a hang up while flying consequently burning out a $70 plus servo I had had enough .
It would have been better If there were no retracts In the Kit at all .


The good thing Is that we have put out our experiences on this thread allowing fellow modelers to see what they are getting Into .
They can then make their own judgments based on the experience of others which Is what the forum is about

I have been Modeling for the best part of 40 years and In the process of finishing off a 1/5th scale pica mustang with decent retracts so with another coat of epoxy resin and more sanding it Is not far away . Then onto the full build Topflight P47 also with Robarts which I have In the box.
Regards G

(in reply to Rip n Bank)
       Post #: 1576

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/23/2008 11:30:39 PM   
cwharper


 

Posts: 220
Joined: 2/18/2007
From: Ocilla, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Hi folks, I didn't want to restart the kit retract wars again, but was just interested in hearing if anybody found any ready-made retracts that would be a pretty close drop-in fit.

Let me tell what I am trying out. I called Spring Air and asked if they had any that would fit. Is it Bill? from Spring Air, he said the 704's would. So when I received them, no they wouldn't fit, to small in everyway. Maybe they would have fit the old version P51D, but not the new version. After a closer investigation, I discovered the 404's had a bolt pattern that would pretty darn near fit, with a little extension of the bolt pattern it would probably fit. Bill, had some offset 1/2" diameter and 9" oleo's to go with the 404's, he said to cut them off to the length of the stock oleo. I know the offsets will require some minor cutouts to the well area. We'll see when they get here.

By the way, when I pulled my last set of working stock retracts out, I found some cracks in the welds that would surely have popped off on the next flight and caused another nose over. I've been lucky the last two times it did this. But no more flying until I get the retract issue resolved.

_____________________________

When you see the mushroom cloud, you will know then that I have finally achieved fusion.

(in reply to GSK)
       Post #: 1577

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/24/2008 12:37:10 AM   
kahloq



Posts: 1691
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Status: online 		I have a pair of 705RS robart retracts Im using in the KMP B-25. These would fit the H9 P-51, but not the bolt pattern. It would require simply drilling new holes and installing some new blind nuts.

The following sizes should fit:

Good
551 85 Degree robostrut ready. 8-18 pound planes
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXMRR0&P=7

Good(spring down)
706RS 85 degree robostrut ready 8-18 pound. Uses 7/16" strut
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXNCY4&P=7

Better(could use the stock oleo struts from the H9 plane)
636 85 degree robostrut ready(or any oloe thats 1/2" or even 5/8" up to 32pound plane
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXMUA9&P=7


(in reply to cwharper)
       Post #: 1578

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 2:11:01 AM   
334755


 

Posts: 16
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Fayetteville, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Do you guys think that Futaba s3003 servos would work on the ailerons on the mustang.

(in reply to kahloq)
       Post #: 1579

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 2:20:15 PM   
Rip n Bank


 

Posts: 477
Joined: 3/12/2005
From: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 334755

Do you guys think that Futaba s3003 servos would work on the ailerons on the mustang.


I'd recommend you spend money on servos proportionate with the investment cost of the airplane.

3003's, at the low end of the Futaba servo line, do not fall into that category. You'd hate to have a ~$1500 Mustang auger in because a $15 servo failed!

In general, invest in a good quality 50-60 oz/in. torque servo. I use HiTec 545BB's (everywhere but flaps), but they've been discontinued. I think the 625BB's are close to those.

Especially, invest some money on the servos for Frankie's flaps. It takes a lot of torque, and strong set of gears, to handle defecting those large surfaces into a ~1/2 throttle airstream! For these, I use HiTec's 645MG metal gear servos. These same servos also have to be able to resist the upward deflection of the flaps when they are in the retracted position, and you pull a lot of positive G's in a high-speed climb or turn.

Rip

_____________________________

The more planes you have in your "hangar," the less likely your wife will notice a new one!

(in reply to 334755)
       Post #: 1580

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 4:21:18 PM   
kiosk



Posts: 140
Joined: 2/12/2008
From: , FL, USA
Status: offline 		hi guys, will be building a new frankie (long story, after total loss of model due to RX failure, long fight with Horizon, free replacement) and the FG36. couple questions on 2nd built, is it possible to keep it two piece wing? instead of one piee large surfboard? easier to trasnsport
appreciate any other build tips....

(in reply to Rip n Bank)
       Post #: 1581

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 4:34:38 PM   
kahloq



Posts: 1691
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Status: online 		Ive changed the prop from a 16x10x3 MAS to an 18x12 Menzjlik composite prop to see how it will fly the plane. On the ground, im getting 7500-7600 rpms.
Took it to the field to test fly and couldnt get the motor started. I think the onboard glow unit took a dive. I had hooked it up to charge overnight and the red led light that indicates charging never came on so i think its dead. Will call horizon and get replacement....althoguh I do have two of them here in the house already so i can swap them out without any delay.
I have developed another problem though...for some reason, i cant drain the fuel tank anymore so now I gotta pull all that out and investigate.

Anyhow..heres a pic with the new prop on it.

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize

(in reply to kiosk)
       Post #: 1582

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 4:49:26 PM   
Rip n Bank


 

Posts: 477
Joined: 3/12/2005
From: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kiosk

hi guys, will be building a new frankie (long story, after total loss of model due to RX failure, long fight with Horizon, free replacement) and the FG36. couple questions on 2nd built, is it possible to keep it two piece wing? instead of one piee large surfboard? easier to trasnsport
appreciate any other build tips....


Hi Kiosk,

I would guess that, due to Frankie's design, that's not really an option.

As you undoubtedly noticed on your first build, the wing spar is rather short, so as with most of these "short spar" designs, it is important that the load be transferred evenly across the entire "spar-receiving-box" built into the wing. Coating the spar, on all sides, with epoxy before insertion permits these loads to be evenly distributed across all four sides, and length, of that box.

Making it a 2-piece wing would cause the significant flying and landing loads, to which the wing is subjected, to be mechanically concentrated on the upper, centerline end-point, and the lower outer-most point, of this box only, like a lever would do.

This is why large RC aircraft designed with removable wings typically have long tubular spars so as to better transfer the loads over a greater distance.

Rip

_____________________________

The more planes you have in your "hangar," the less likely your wife will notice a new one!

(in reply to kiosk)
       Post #: 1583

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 5:26:09 PM   
frisconick


 

Posts: 213
Joined: 11/14/2005
From: Frisco, TX, USA
Status: offline 		My last six or eight flights have been with the 16x12 APC. The 220 turns it at 8,800 on the ground. It does take a bit more runway on take-off, but at the same time, seems to be not so quick to veer left; much easier to keep straight on take-off. This plane really smokes with this prop. It even makes a whistle sound on low passes. I guess it's the air moving through the bombs mounted on the wings. Even everyone sitting back watching comments on the speed. Have had no problems with overheating and it still has great vertical.

Nick

(in reply to kahloq)
       Post #: 1584

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 6:59:31 PM   
kahloq



Posts: 1691
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Status: online 		Here is video of friends electric H9 P-51 on 12s....shot the video yesterday. It was hard to keep the plane in focus some of the time cuz of how fast it was moving, but I think its a pretty good video.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showatt.php?attachmentid=1941938

(in reply to frisconick)
       Post #: 1585

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 8:46:38 PM   
borabora22


 

Posts: 87
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: chanhassen, MN, USA
Status: offline 		For all you guys running a Saito 180 in your Mustang what RPMS are you getting with what prop. I am breaking in this engine for my Mustang on the bench. The best it does is 8,300 with a 16x10 2 blade prop. I am using wildcat 20% and 15 Nitro per the manual. I have almost a gallon thru it now. It is also seem to be putting out a ton of smoke. I am just curious what experience others have had with this engine.

(in reply to kahloq)
       Post #: 1586

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 8:52:59 PM   
kiosk



Posts: 140
Joined: 2/12/2008
From: , FL, USA
Status: offline 		thats nice, but way to quiet for a warbird for my taste.....

(in reply to kahloq)
       Post #: 1587

RE: New Hangar 9 1.50 P-51 Build - 6/30/2008 9:07:18 PM   
reincarnate



Posts: 780
Joined: 10/1/2006
From: Columbia City, IN, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Rip n Bank Date 6/30/2008 11:49:26 AM
I would guess that, due to Frankie's design, that's not really an option.


I agree with Rip. I think that would be a decision you'd regret. With my airplane all packed to go in my GMC Safari, (that I commandeered last year from the wife for a plane transport vehicle ) if you can get the fuse and transport cradle, with an 18-20" prop parked, you can probably fit the wing in too. If you can't, you may need a bigger vehicle, not smaller planes.

Have fun with the FG36. It's a blast on the 51! Well worth the firewall mods you will be facing. If you haven't already seen it, Horizon has some templates for the mods on their website. If you use them, you do need to make some adjustments, but man are they a time saver!



Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize

(in reply to kiosk)