Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

We follow the same school of thought. I've been preaching this for years. Kits, ARF's, plans almost always have a "best guess" approach to balance. When you do the math, there are no more surprises. My favorite sport plane is the old NotForSale. With a largish horizontal stabilizer I balance at 40%. Incredible slow-flight performance.

ForcesR

I believe Tommy Gun is mistaken..!! I find it impossible to believe that he has balanced his TF FW-190 1.5" beyond what is recommended in the manual. That would place the CG at 7", which equals 177.8mm. Even 1" further to the rear from 5.5" is 6.5" which equals 165.1mm which is still to far aft for the CG. If I'm not mistaken, 139mm for the CG as is mentioned in the manual is 28% MAC. I will confirm that when I get home from work and measure the wing chord.

ForcesR

I measured the TF FW-190 wing Chord; I measured from the wing leading edge break as is shown in the manual to the wing trailing edge, the result is 17.5" or 444.5mm.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Seems to me it is safer to start where the plans say (Unless there is a Knowen Problem) and after the maiden start moving the CG in small steps ... Beter safe than sorry.

SWORDSN

My Feedback: (13)

I balanced mine by the manual and it flies great. The first 21 flights were without the cowl.I have now mounted the cowl(and re-balanced it) and it flies much better.

Tommy_Gun

Believe what you like.
All I know is what I've done and how it performs.

I dont suppose a lifetime of modeling since I was a teen in the mid 1970s and being a licenced full scale aircraft mechanic/designated inspector would have taught me anything at all about what I speak.

Katniss

It may fly at 7" back for a CG, but, many people are not going to feel comfortable having a warbird perform like a 3D pattern plane. If Tommy likes it there. .. Awesome. Not disparaging anyone's desire to fly their plane as they like.

At the same time, Top Flite listed 5.5" for a reason.

From flying the ESM Fw190 D9, I know IM not a fan of being on the back end of CG range for a 190 with scale length gear.

For ME, and this is just talking for ME, I prefer a more nose heavy balance. It makes me feel more comfortable and landing is easier in my opinion when the gear/wheels plant to the ground instead of acting like a Pogo stick popping the plane back up into a forced near earth stall attitude.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

I've seen Tommy fly his 190 many times. It never looks out of control in the least.
Looks like most other normal warbirds while taking off, flying and landing.

Katniss

Probably flies fine, but as someone else said a few posts back. .. Best to start at the manuals cg point to be safe and then adjust for that person's comfort level. .. Whether moving it forward or aft.
I know myself, I would not be comfortable at 7"

Anyway....good to see the plane can fly ok with a wider range of cg positions.

ForcesR

I thought you may have just made a mistake in saying you balanced your FW 1.5" aft of 5.5" to 7" which is 177.8mm. Using the MAC rule for selecting CG, 177.8mm would be approximately 40% MAC. If you say it performs well at that CG than I will have to take you at your word. All of my RC aircraft are warbirds except one, I have found that if I set the CG beyond 30% MAC the aircraft becomes too pitch sensitive for my liking. That's the reason why I was questioning where you had your CG set. I didn't mean to offend you, if I did, I apologize.

Mpizpilot

My Feedback: (45)

At the end of my season last year, I felt my FW was a bit sloppy and all over the sky when flying in our clubs warbid gaggles. During my winter maintence I found my box of lead had disappeared from the motor box. Easily had 3 lbs in there. So yeah, they fly at a very aft CG but not nearly as nice with the correct cg.

Tommy_Gun

Not at all offended. Just trying to show that I'm not a self appointed "internet expert".

I have had this plane for many years. From the beginning, I have made changes as required to get the plane and its systems to perform as good as they can.
The CG as I have it gives a plane that handles well on the ground with the tail planted. Takes off and climbs out in a nice fashion. Flies the full approach to landing in a wonderful fashion, and is very forgiving of corrections right up to touchdown. And on top of all that, it flies standard warbird aerobatics in fine fashion. Inverted flight only uses a touch of down stick.
As for an earlier 3D comment. At NO TIME am I flying a plane like this at high AoA and low airspeed. Sure, I can take it up on a vertical line and get a torque roll during a tail slide. But that's not 3D.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Tommy Gun,

Are you using the suggested low and high rate settings on your pitch control, or are you running less?

Tommy_Gun

I don't make use of the dual rate switches.
I'll measure the throws and report back later.
I like to keep things simple. I'll go somwhere in the middle of the manufacturers suggestions. Then test fly and adjust linkages mechanically to get my desired results. I prefer to not have to remember what switch should be where.
Maybe my methods are old, but I was taught to test and trim.
Also, I fly mode 1. It's what I learned up in nor cal back in the mid 70s.
I can also fly mode 2, when needed to assist another beginner, but all my planes are mode 1.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

I appreciate your approach. I set throws to my preference on low rates and keep them there all the time. The only exception is pitch, which I max out the up elevator throw for taxi. All adjustments to the electronic trims are zeroed out back in the shop and the clevis' are adjusted to the final position.
I tried Mode 1 once, but have been Mode 2 since the beginning of the R/C side of my hobby.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Had a good friend Stu Richmand (AMA Hall of Famer) anyway he flew mode one and on occation he would let me fly this little Slo-Poke with a .10 Glo motor. He'd fly it till it ran out of gas about 30 minutes. Anyway I attempt to pull the right stick expecting it to clime and of course it would decend because as U know the Right stick front to back is the throttle and pulling it caused it to go to Idle. Took a while and lots of consentration to keep it up in the air. Good thing it was light and a floater.

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

Tommy Gun . I just took the cowl off and I would say their is between 4 to 5 lbs of lead including the steel plates . Sounds like a lot , The plane flys great and take offs and landings are almost automatic. It has a DLE 55 or 61 in it , i'm not sure .I purchased the plane from someone else. Foes that much weight seem typical , I'm open to suggestions . Approx. how much weight does your FW-190 have up front . My weights are all around the engine box and most are either doubled or tripled all around and even more on the bottom of the box. The only reason I'm asking is because the last time i flew it I came in for a perfect wheel landing with no bumps or bounces and the locking pin on the trunion bent . Thanks for all your help !!! BOB

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

Tommy Gun I just checked the weights and it looks like 5 lbs of lead plus the steel plates . scared !!!

Katniss

5 pounds is typical for a short nose plane. Many spitfires in this size take 6 pounds.

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

I had a IMP Giant scale Tempest years ago with approx. 6 or 7 lbs of lead . The plane flew but every time i came in for a great landing i noticed the landing gear were taking a beating , so i got rid of it . I recently had a ESM Giant scale Spitfire and it took 4 lbs to balance and an extra 1/2 lb to make it settle down for smooth landings and then traded it for the Top Flit FW-190 . This plane has approx. 3 to 3 1/2 lbs of weight to balance , I had the weight wrong on my previous statement . I wish Top Flite would have stretched the fuse an inch or 2 like they did on their Corsair .

Tommy_Gun

I'm running a Saito 3 cylinder 60cc 4 stroke.
I have bit more "working ballast" up front in that my engine weighs a bit more than most 2 strokes in the same size class.
If you're happy with the way it flies, then leave it alone.
If you think its performing in a nose heavy fashion, then do the calculations and make adjustment if/as needed.

Katniss

Awesome motor Tommy. How much trouble have you had with cylinders cracking?

Tommy_Gun

No problems at all. Watch my vid in the last few pages of this thread. You'll see and hear how it performs.

Katniss

How much time do you have on the motor?
In the fg60 thread, there has been a lot of reports that the #3 cylinder cracks at the base after several hours. Has also occurred on cyl #2.

Tommy_Gun

I'm guessing the engine has about 15 to 20 hrs on it since new.