vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Sharing your passion for the FW 190 D series, I would like to recommend a book. It is very obscure, and kind of tricky to find. It is one of the best I have in regards to paint schemes and 3-views. It was created by a plastic model manufacturer. I thought you might be interested in it.

http://store.spruebrothers.com/product_p/cmk01502.htm

zrooster

Bummer! I don't have the fabrication skills to scratch or even kit build, plus I have this full scale mustang build that's been ongoing for a while (more my forte):

zrooster

Nice resource!

70 ragtop

My Feedback: (24)

Wow
Lot to catch up on from today, always entertaining.
Have to say, this thing lands like a ***** cat. Put the CG were Dowmer says, and just let it land, don't force the 3 point. It is really very forgiving, and mine didn't seem to care about the approach at all. Long easy approach with power on, vs short final (semi dive/ full flaps), it doesn't seem to care.

I did strengthen my gear mounts, just incase

As far a scale props, I'm looking at options myself. IMHO, the problem with a big scale prop will be the prop acting like a speed brake. Think old Byron Mustangs 24" four blade prop, had to carry power all the way down, or it would slow down way too fast

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Scale prop discussions seem to be in many threads here in RCU. The big issue is, the engines that fit in these planes, are designed to spin a certain sized prop, which do not tend to be scale! Also, the FW 190 props were big, with a ton of blade width, which adds even more load. It would seem the best option if the prop is the most important factor, us to go electric. The second option if you must have an engine is a reduction drive. The ones on the market really would not fit in the ESM 190 though. That old Byron Purr Powr drive set the engine way back, and still did not seem to provide good power. I saw one of those fly a couple of years ago at the WBOTR. What a funny sounding thing!

Maybe what is needed would be a gear reduction (instead of a belt) that could be made to be more compact. Then possibly a DLE 35 or something could be utilised. There seems to be a lot of demand for scale, flying props, so maybe a solution will be offered at some point. Finding a good prop seems like it would be hard enough, even if you did have a powerplant.

70 ragtop

My Feedback: (24)

Yup, agree

Already electric, but the Mick Reeves G-62 reduction should swing a scale prop without any issue (besides fit). I was thinking Vario drive 32 series for a 28" semi scale, variable pitch prop , but at close to $300, I'm still thinking. At that $ level, will be putting a scale prop in my Mustang before this one

70 ragtop

My Feedback: (24)

Nice

Built a few that looked like that! Actually, some might not have been that nice. The things we do to save a numbers car??

67? Bigblock car?

zrooster

Good eye except it was originally a 289 car at the right price. Plan is a crate 427 stroker on a 351 block...ford racing has a nice one, but pricy...looking at other options. Besides that, going modern suspension, power 4 wheel disks, top loader 4 speed, 17" magnums, full length headers into resonators, painless wiring. Nearly everything is being replaced...starting with the floor pans, cowl vents, kick pans and part of the firewall. Glad I've got a buddy that's a welder!

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

Your observation about models and full scale are accurate. Most if not all model aircraft pilots flying conventional gear land on the mains and rarely attempt a three point landing. Flying full scale tail draggers the opposite usually applies. Go on UTube and watch WWII videos' of actual military fighters landing. I had an ESM FW190 and only tried a three point landing once and like so many others it turned into a "pogo stick". Now turn this around to my H9 Super Cub and it is never a problem. It all comes down to wing loading and flying speed.

Katniss

Vertical.... I think it's safe to say insults were implied from both sides. Can we just dispense with the awkward feud and stop making references to each other ...implied or direct....that make disparaging connotations??
Yes...you helped paint mine... and by watching.. I was able to learn and figure out how to do it, which I've done. I've also helped you with things. Can we just stay on a positive note please?

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Agreed. Now go get a high performance sport plane so you can shoot touch and goes over and over to stay sharp! Everything does not have to be a warbird. LOL

Merry X-mas

Katniss

I do have a few....my extra 260 is in storage... ..I don't need touch and go practice on that type of plane.....they are so light wingloading that it doesn't translate at all. I need practice with THIS plane.....spare wing is almost ready....have been busy with social life lately and haven't done much with r/c building. Although...my girlfriend seems to be taking a slight interest in learning....more so probably because I've taken up snowboarding and that's one of her passions and she wants to do things I have liked doing.
Don't worry, I have her on the simulator

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

I practice my landings all the time. Right and left approaches. Over and over and over. It makes a big difference regardless of what you are flying. My Sun fli served me very well last year. The reason I built it was for landing practice. Keeping my depth perception sharp, my orientation with the runways. When I just focused on flying my warbirds all the time, my landings went down hill. I took it along with me to the AMA nationals last summer. It was invaluable there, as I wanted to get used to the runways there. All the practice paid off as I was scoring perfect 10's with the Fokker DVII.

So you know, I will have the TA 152 finished in a month or so. Then you can give me a hard time about poor landings with a large FW 190 type. : )

Dowmer

My Feedback: (1)

VG, do you have paint on it yet?

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Not yet. Glassing right now. Should have that done within a week or so. Then primer, panel lines and such. It is essentially at the ARF stage right now. : )

Katniss

I'm not going to give you a hard time about landing your TA-152. We're done with giving each other a hard time, right?
Just so you know.. .I sold my house several months ago as my ex is now in Tuscon. I rented a house, but no basement.... so much of my plane inventory is in storage. I've been busy getting things taken care of and spending time with my girlfriend. I've been out to the field maybe 3 times since June. So yeah...I'll need to pull the Extra 260 out of storage when weather gets better again.

zrooster

Not to belabor the point, but most current warbird owners prefer to wheel them on...they're rare, expensive and its safer. Different situation "back in the day".

Ramstein44

My Feedback: (157)

+1

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Keep in mind the models we are discussing here, have a relatively lower wing loading than their full scale counterparts. Leading to a lower stall speed. They need to be dealt with differently. The Top flite FW 190 is very light, and seems to suffer from the same tendencies when too much energy is carried into the final approach. Just because the shape of these models match a full scale airplane, does not mean the landing characteristics are the same. Another example of when comparing full scale issues to model issues.

I do tend to land my FW 190 on it's wheels mostly, but all of my other tail draggers I 3 point. Not sure what the modern policy is on full scale tail dragger landing techniques, but I do know at one time 3 pointing was the preferred method.

Ramstein44

My Feedback: (157)

Vertical, Which FW190 are you flying?

ForcesR

Full scale warbirds (tail draggers) were designed to land 3 point due to the small horizontal stab surface area. The hoziontal stab gradually began losing lift much sooner than the main wing, this allowed the tail to squat which allowed for 3 point landings. Watch any video of a WWII fighter landing and you will see how the tail begins to squat as the aircraft slows for landing.

RC warbirds are difficult to land 3 point due to the horizontal stab being enlarged 15 to 20% beyond what they actually would be if they were true to full scale size. The main wing on RC models usually loses lift and stalls before the horizontal stab begins losing lift to allow tail squatting and 3 point landings.

Katniss

I am betting he is referring to his .60 size PICA with Robart gear(I think its got Robart gear in it). The struts aren't nearly as long as scale, but there isn't much room to do something else, although I do not have one so I don't know how its built.
While not in the same class, I have an FMS fw-190A that I use for just fun flying and sometimes touch and go practice...but its super light. It does have scale length gear, but since the wingloading is pretty much non existent, it just is completely easy to land.....on the mains....doesn't like a 3 point. Im sure it could be done though.

thunder21

My Feedback: (2)

While a lot depends on the CG relative to the center of lift, most warbirds have a forward CG and require slight negative (downward) lift at the tail to keep the wing from pitching down. If the tail stalls, the wing pitches down and stalls.

http://www.nar-associates.com/techni...web_screen.pdf

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

My Pica, all be it a smaller model, has scale length struts. The length of the struts actually have an important role in the 3 point landing. If designed correctly, the angle at which the mains and tail touch, is also the optimum angle that the wing should be, at the appropriate airspeed for the wing to stall. All of this is in the design of the aircraft.

Katniss

I didnt realize the struts were the right length on your Pica...sorry. For some reason I thought they were a bit too short....