RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD  
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
       


Top Flite P-51D Mustang - 1/5 RTC - ARF
Seller:  chase67
Details:   $750.00   |  11/30/2008   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> RC Warbirds and Warplanes >> RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 8/31/2008 1:44:57 AM   
mobyal


 

Posts: 825
Joined: 1/2/2006
From: Lexington, VA, USA
Status: offline 		This'll be fun to watch. Way beyond my skill level!

_____________________________

MobyAl

(in reply to 8178)
       Post #: 26

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 8/31/2008 2:25:57 PM   
Warbird Man



Posts: 267
Joined: 9/3/2004
From: Hortonville, WI, USA
Status: online 		I finally finished making and installing the extra formers and added stringers for the bomb bay and nose gear doors. (B-29s have two bomb bays)
The left side of fuse is now ready to be sheeted. I order to hold shape, the nose gear doors will be cut out after being sheeted.
The sketch shows how the wing center section can be made removable if need be with removable bomb bay doors.

I don't intend to bury any servos in the fuse of the plane as the plans show. All will be set up and accessable through the bomb bays.

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


< Message edited by Warbird Man -- 8/31/2008 2:32:14 PM >

_____________________________

Warbird Man

(in reply to Warbird Man)
       Post #: 27

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 9/2/2008 3:48:34 AM   
Warbird Man



Posts: 267
Joined: 9/3/2004
From: Hortonville, WI, USA
Status: online 		Left side of fuselage finally all sheeted. Just needs alittle more sanding. Then I'll turn it over to start the right side which will be built directly over the left.

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


_____________________________

Warbird Man

(in reply to Warbird Man)
       Post #: 28

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 9/2/2008 12:51:53 PM   
salat



Posts: 159
Joined: 1/24/2003
From: Novosibirsk, RUSSIA
Status: offline 		what is density of wood in this kit?

(in reply to Warbird Man)
       Post #: 29

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 9/2/2008 1:25:10 PM   
Gringo Flyer



Posts: 2249
Joined: 1/16/2004
From: Formosa, ARGENTINA
Status: offline 		From a less experienced builder working on his first warbird I have a question about the sheeting. I am working on a P47 and have finished sheeting the fuse. The fuse was sheeted in parts. Most of the P47 fuse is round, just like the B29. I am having problems getting a smooth finish over those joints. It looks fine to the eye but when you run your hand over it you can always feel a little bump over the seam.

Looking at the B29 I am guessing it was sheeted in parts as well. How do you get smooth joints between sheets?

Sorry to interrupt the thread.. I am very interested in this project.


_____________________________

"Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway."---John Wayne

(in reply to salat)
       Post #: 30

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 9/2/2008 11:15:30 PM   
Warbird Man



Posts: 267
Joined: 9/3/2004
From: Hortonville, WI, USA
Status: online 		Salat,

I assume your asking about the sheeting balsa? It varies. Some are soft and some are more ridged which is ok because I use the softer pieces to bend around the fuse and the stiffer pieces on the wings. All the ribs and formers are lite ply.


Gringo Flyer,

What kind of glue are you using to glue your seems together with? If you used CA you'll have a heck of a time trying to sand the joints because the glue dries too hard. There are many other glues you could use for seem work. Some sand better than others. I decided to try out Elmers Pro-Bond on this one and it seems to sand pretty good and doesn't ball up and clog the sand paper. But again, there might be something out there that will work even better.

The nose and tail on the B-29 had to be strip planked down to 1/2" strips in order to bend around the formers. It took all weekend. Also when your gluing seems together, Take your time and fit them together like a glove without gaps. You'll use less glue which will result in a stronger joint and less of a "bump" to sand out .

< Message edited by Warbird Man -- 9/3/2008 1:19:22 AM >

_____________________________

Warbird Man

(in reply to salat)
       Post #: 31

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 9/2/2008 11:35:51 PM   
ramcfarland



Posts: 3236
Joined: 11/4/2002
From: Waldorf , MD, USA
Status: offline 		Hello Warbird Man just found this thread. I can not think of anything more interesting than doing the frame up,things go fast and with every build session one can see LOTS of progress. I'm curious what finish you will go with as there were few O.D. Superforts. Well again, glad you are doing a thread on the Don Smith Plans B-29.


_____________________________

Fast Richard

(in reply to Warbird Man)
       Post #: 32

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 9/3/2008 10:05:45 AM   
salat



Posts: 159
Joined: 1/24/2003
From: Novosibirsk, RUSSIA
Status: offline 		Warbird Man, do not forget to post pictures of every step please..

(in reply to ramcfarland)
       Post #: 33

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 9/3/2008 10:34:55 AM   
Edwin


 

Posts: 3440
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Leander, TX, USA
Status: online 		How big are the cowls? Would the G20 or G26 fit? I wonder if they would fit in the 169" cowls? With the price of glow fuel being what it is now I'm looking more seriously at gas.
Edwin

(in reply to salat)
       Post #: 34

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS - 9/3/2008 10:37:28 AM   
Peter_OZ



Posts: 4781
Joined: 6/5/2002
From: Brisbane, , AUSTRALIA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Warbird Man

This is going to be the 141" (12 foot) wing span version. I considered the 14' version, but the kit costs were almost doubled and not worth the extra 2 feet along with other issues considered. (I also have to fit this thing in my 6X10 trailer.)

As for power, I was going to try and stuff G-20s in the cowls (as I'm not a big fan of glow engines) But I weighed out "all" the pros and cons and decided to bite the bullet and go with 4- OS .91 4 strokes. Much better power to weight ratio and of course, nothing beats the sound of 4 4-strokes in sync.



thee is guy here ho has a B29 about your size and powered by 4 x OS FS91. At a recent warbird meet he lost 3 engines in flight, only 1 inboard running and was able to maintaine altitude and make a good landing. Should give you some confidence in the design.


Best of luck with your build.

cheers
Peter

_____________________________

www.petenplanes.com.au

(in reply to Warbird Man)
       Post #: 35

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS - 9/3/2008 2:04:48 PM   
SWORDSN


 

Posts: 29
Joined: 6/4/2004
From: WILLIAMSTON, SC, USA
Status: offline 		My 2cents worth says any multi-engine plane should ALWAYS HAVE ONBOARD GLOW

(in reply to Peter_OZ)
       Post #: 36

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 9/3/2008 2:24:10 PM   
fockewulf37


 

Posts: 1260
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: kannapolis, NC, USA
Status: offline 		I may have said it before??? I would run full time glow. turn it on and leave it on for the whole flight. I used to do all my glow motors that way before I went electric power. I never burned out a plug and I think I may have lost a motor in flight one time???

Ty

(in reply to SWORDSN)
       Post #: 37

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS BUILD THREAD - 9/4/2008 2:53:52 AM   
Warbird Man



Posts: 267
Joined: 9/3/2004
From: Hortonville, WI, USA
Status: online 		Edwin,
The cowls are not as big as one would think. Although the model has a 12 foot wing span and is over eight feet long, It's only 1/12th scale. I was dead set on stuffing G-20s into the cowls which are comparable to about a .40 size plane. I could have fit them in, but half the carb would stick out one side, the bottom of the cylinder head and plug out the bottom. A custom exhaust also would have to be fabricated. My main issues with the G-20s are with the weight of the engines which are twice the weight of the 4 strokes and the weight of the ignition modules also which have been proven to be unreliable and draw alot of current requiring even more weight by using bigger batteries to run them. A solution to that was to change them all to C&H ignitions. but now your sticking another $400.00 plus in them. Plus, now you have to maintain 4 more batteries plus the 2 I'll have in the plane to run the RX for a total of 6.

I don't like wiping the oily glow fuel residue off my planes and the price has gone up on the stuff, But one has to ask, is it really worth the extra costs and maintenance just to run gas on a plane such as this.

I've considered building the 169" version because it would be better for gassers. G-26s ( mag version) should work for that. But the kit price alone for the 169" is about double cost over the 141". Also you would probably need a 12x7 trailer to haul it around in.
(The wife would kill me if I came home with a new trailer to haul it in.) So I stuck with the 141" version.

The oily glow residue might not be that bad on the plane as the engines are out on the wings away from the fuse.
I'll post some pics of the cowls vs engines later in the build.


< Message edited by Warbird Man -- 9/4/2008 4:12:09 AM >

_____________________________

Warbird Man

(in reply to Edwin)
       Post #: 38

RE: B-29 SUPERFORTRESS - 9/4/2008 3:03:59 AM   
Warbird Man



Posts: 267
Joined: 9/3/2004
From: Hortonville, WI, USA
Status: online 		Peter OZ,

It's good to know a plane like that came back on one engine. B-29s are kinda like a long winged glider with a cigar shaped fuselage. I think most people running twins and 4 engine planes have engine out problems are due to improper tuning.

As FW 37 suggested, I'll definetly be running on board glow drivers on this one.

< Message edited by Warbird Man -- 9/4/2008 3:12:33 AM >

_____________________________

Warbird Man

(in reply to Peter_OZ)