hyehrd1

I started building a BUSA Eindecker 40 a few years back, but stopped after my flying buddy past away.
Well I'm back on the project,...I have the wing built with hidden servos and took out some of the dihedral to make it more scale. I also plan on doing full flying tail feathers and
maybe shortening the nose section. Ya,.I know,..I could have scratch built it faster. The wood in the kit is real heavy, that includes the fuselage sides. The big question I have is,
does the plane come out tail heavy? If necessary, I'll do a open truss aft section too correct. I will be using a Saito 45 -56 with a more correct looking cowl.
Thanks for the help,
Dudley

abufletcher

Here are some ideas for simple to do mods to the BUSA eindecker:

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/aerostuff/eindeckero.htm

TFF

You might search abuflechers' Eindecker.

Lucky Dog

My Feedback: (1)

Welcome back Dudley,
i did just what you're getting ready to do on my .90 BUSA Eindecker (also converted it to an EIV). Yes, it is a bit tail heavy built as stock.


If if I can help, please let me know. Here's a link to more pics. Construction images on last page.

http://s39.photobucket.com/user/mbea...y/Fokker%20EIV

hyehrd1

Thanks fellas!

The photos from "abufletcher" I've seen for years,...brought back some memory's..

"Lucky Dog",..your photos are great! The lead strapped too the motor mount sez it all! That just confirms what I was thinking about the tail moment. Open frame it is!
Sorry about seeing the "re-kit" in the last picture...

Thanks again,
Dudley

Lucky Dog

My Feedback: (1)

You are welcome. I never compared the difference in weight savings other that I know it took about half as much nose weight on the EIV. I've banged her up a couple of times in a similar fashion, but put her back together. I didn't fly the EIV last year, but preparing to take her out this weekend after a thougough going over.

Lucky Dog

My Feedback: (1)

Be sure to set up differential in the ailerons and lots of exponenential with the elevator. That full flying surface it too effective. I must admit the stock EIII is an easier plane to fly.

hyehrd1

Yes,...I'm on it! Wash-out plus 2-3 times on the differential is always on my mind. I also agree about the elevator being touchy..lots of area being moved. There are a lot of people that don't realize
that the left stick moves in a left to right axis, besides fore and aft............lol.
Thanks again,
Dudley

abufletcher

If you're going to use a full-flying elevator, I would strongly recommend that you don't use the way oversized BUSA outlines. Make it a scale size. You don't need much deflection, so why have a HUGE non-scale elevator? Personally, I also don't see the point of the enormous BUSA rudder shape. A scale size rudder will fly the model perfectly...unless of course you plan on doing knife-edge passes with your eindecker!

Lucky Dog

My Feedback: (1)

I agree with abufletcher. The .90 size BUSA Eindecker is basically a 1/5 scale model. The tail and elevator is closer to 1/4 scale. I didn't change mine in size, but the rudder and elev. I did a scale outline. I was hesitant to change too much. In hindsight, smaller would have been fine I think.

As you probably saw on my Photobucket album. The 1/4 scale "scale" outline compared to the stock rudder and vert stab.

Lucky Dog

My Feedback: (1)

The spars are carbon fiber arrow shafts. Very strong and light.



However they did not hold up against being rear ended by a 1/4 scale Gotha GIV in the pits a few years back.

hyehrd1

I'm back for a short time(work). I have a plan for the aft end of the fuselage to save time, I think. Build it as per the plans and "window" between the longerons and the up rites too lighten the
back end on the plane. All 4 sides. What do you fellas think? I have Bamboo skews that I can use for bracing,..done this on another airplane, (windows) and it helped out a lot..

abufletcher

You could build a whole new "oil rig" for the fuselage behind the cockpit in a single day. The eindecker is very simple. And then graft that onto the slab sides in the front. I've also tried the bamboo skewers, but even they add weight. One trick that many modelers have used is to run kevlar thread up and down using one thread for the whole frame, with a drop of CA to lock the thread at each cross-point. The Kevlar weighs virtually nothing.

For me it's partly a matter of "building aesthetics." I just couldn't bring myself to ever use a slab side on a WWI model...except on a model of an aircraft that actually had slap sides...for example, the Albatros CI I'm working on.

mgnostic

I built the BUSA Bristol Monoplane a number of years ago. It is of similar size, although it does have a trusswork fuselage. It has a reputation for tailheaviness that I ended up addressing with a honking big engine (an Irvine .72). It is also an airplane that can benefit from a built up tail rather that the all sheet structures that are provided. I ran a 14-6 prop that looked a lot more scale without overspeeding the plane too much. Lucky Dog's comments on aileron differential are right on target.

WW1 Flying Ace

My Feedback: (1)

Can anyone here help me with the center of gravity for this airplane? Mine's finished, and I deep-sixed the plans by accident. I can guess it's about the main spar. Thanks.