Turnale

Here is a picture of the ignition box attached to the front tab.

gary9648

My Feedback: (1)

exactly like I did mine years ago and it has stood the test of time and many flights

J.V.

My Feedback: (56)

Can someone who used Sierra retract with the scale door arms post a picture so I can see how they installed them. im fitting my Sierra gear in my new Mustang and the back door arms are rubbing against the wheel well. Plus Ill like to see how they conected the gear to the gear arms.

aghost

My Feedback: (13)

Pics of my installation. Generally my goal is something that works and kind of looks OK, not to worried about scale and really good looks. This installation was pretty much trouble free and even easier than the TF method with blocks.

This was done several years ago. As I remember I glued the gear door in place with the top hinge. Then trial and error to find a location to attach the scale arm that gave me the correct up and down positions. Then bent a piece of wire for the gear door. I believe the two end of the wire meet in the connector on the gear, not on the door.

Hope this helps.

Brian

gary9648

My Feedback: (1)

I believe I posted a photo in that here a long time ago. I used wooden blocks carved to fit strut and then glued and strapped them in using a piece of aluminum can and screws to hold strap to wooden blocks. I then glued blocks to the main gear and used flat screws from the front of the gear door into the wood to keep them in place. I fly off grass mostly and have never had them come off

J.V.

My Feedback: (56)

Thank you gentlemen, thats simular to the idea I had, but seeing a picture clears up some of the confusion. Thanks again aghost.

spitfire66

I have a question about the tail wheel retract and gear doors. I have the air system hooked up to the tail wheel only and i am able to get 6 cycles max before being unable to extend against the tension of the tail wheel doors. I have 1 rubber band on 1 side and 2 on the other. Does this sound like it is performing normally, or should I be able to get more cycles?

CCFPILOT

If you have the large air tank and 100 lbs of air pressure, you should never run out of air. Also, if you need two rubber bands, it maybe that the doors are binding on something, or maybe hinge alignment. I know I was never impressed by the hinging on the tail wheel.

Circle City Pilot

mihelone

Good morning.
I use one small spring for each gear door instead of the rubber bands.
Check the hinge alignment for binding as mentioned. You should get above 10 cycles with the large air tank...

spitfire66

I replaced the hinges on the tail doors and was able to get 16 cycles. I am not sure if it was binding or glue in the hinge point, but either way thanks for the input.

sjhanc

My Feedback: (3)

For those Pilots interested in four blade prop performance, I finally got around to testing and flying my P 51 B with the R 50 motor and the Varioprop 4 blade. I bought a set of 19.9 inch diameter blades and installed them in the 16D hub. These blades are a Spitfire profile and are manufacturer rated for 7800 rpm for 1 minute. Ground testing with the blade pitch set at 16 inches gave the following results;
Max rpm was 6700 rpm ( pitch speed 110 mph) and some noticeable prop-rip
Max current was 174 amps
Max wattage was 7234 watts
1/2 throttle (takeoff power) gave the following results;
Rpm was 4215 (pitch speed 65 mph)
current was 32.8 amps
watts were 1442
In flight readings were;
at take off, 1/2 throttle,
rpm was 6915
current was 140 amps
watts were 6405
In-flight average at 1/2 power;
rpm was 7384 (pitch speed 125 mph, no noticeable prop rip)
current was 57.5 amps
Watts were 1884
Average ESC temps were 122.3 F- max temp was 136.9.
At the 4 minute point in the flight a gas powered plane joined up and went to full power, I throttled up to full power and easily pulled ahead about 150 feet in a run of about 1000 feet going West downwind in a 5 mph NE breeze. Performance readings for this part of the flight;
rpm was 8239 ( pitch speed 135 mph, not verified by radar)
current was 101.8 amps
watts were 5800
After the flight the motor temperature at the windings was 135 F,
At the outside of the magnet frame-155 F. About 20 F hotter than this motor reaches using a Graupner 22-14 sport prop.
Ramoser Varioprop is working on a set of 21.9 inch diameter blades (P 51 blade profile) using a different hub and rated at a much higher rpm limit. A recent visit to the web site did not yet show the new prop as For Sale. In my opinion the R 50 motor is happy turning the 4 blade 19.9 inch prop and rpm and current draw are reasonable. I painted the blade tips yellow and applied Hamilton Standard decals but this is barely visible in flight, the P 51 blade profile is highly visible. Other brand motors in this 50cc class might give better performance with this prop.

mark IX

My Feedback: (9)

All good info, Steve, appreciate you posting this. I assume you are happy with the observed flight speed. Also with the R50 I assume there was no "adverse noise" from the motor due the 4 blade prop. What was your total flight duration?

Thanx, Mark

sjhanc

My Feedback: (3)

The total flight time was 6 minutes and it used 4900 mah out of a 6600 mah pack. The R 50 motor was quiet especially during the tail lifting on takeoff where the R 65 made all of its noise. While the static run full throttle current draw is as high as I have seen with other setups it never got over 145 amps briefly at the start of the acceleration to top speed from about 75 mph. As the speed climbed the current draw tapered off to 115 amps after it reached top speed. Average current draw at cruise is lower than with the 2 blade 22-12 Graupner Sport prop at 40-60 amps. If you can resist the temptation to throttle up duration could reach 8 minutes with this prop.

mark IX

My Feedback: (9)

Steve, weren't you using the Vario Prop 22" 4 blade before with the R65 motor? So you have switched to the 20" (roughly) 4 blade with the above results, correct?

Mark

sjhanc

My Feedback: (3)

Yes, but the R 65's magnets began to break up from the excessive vibration. I have been flying the Plane with the R 50 ever since using the 22-12 prop and wanted to find a 4 blade combination that it could handle. Running it on the ground full throttle produces excessive loads on the motor but in the air it is actually very close to the 22-12 prop in load but gives better top end performance at the same or less current. At the low end it is a little less responsive than the 2 blade (which is not an electric prop). The blades are very thin to help raise the max rpm rating to 7800. I find that it is turning 6800-7200 rpm in the half throttle range but the current draw is very low at half throttle. It will take a little getting used to a different power curve. I have decided against changing the pitch as reducing pitch would raise rpm beyond the manufacturer's limit. Increasing pitch might improve the bottom end but might also raise the top end higher than I like to fly (flutter).
My only complaints with these blades are the Spitfire profile and almost no noise in flight. The P 51 B airframe begins to make a lot of wind noise at cruise and higher and drowns out the Benedini engine sounds. The Graupner 22-12 prop would come in with an excellent prop rip at high flight speeds which spectators, especially kids seem to really enjoy. The quiet flight aspect is deceiving as it doesn't seem to be going very fast until it blows past a screaming gas motor and then I still have more throttle to use. The R 50 motor turns over 10,000 rpm with no prop and it turns this version of the Varioprop at over 8,200 in the air. I don't know for sure what this means in terms of prop efficiency but as long as the motor doesn't overheat I guess it is usable. My one flight last weekend was not enough to make a judgment as to whether to stay with it or not because my air compressor for the retracts developed a leak and I had to call it a day.
I plan to fly it again this weekend to get some more experience with it.

mark IX

My Feedback: (9)

It will be interesting to see if the R50 develops any noise, like the R65 did, with the current 20" Vario 4 blade you are now running. I don't believe the R50 has a center bearing either. Any plans to try the E flite P360?

Mark

sjhanc

My Feedback: (3)

I have plans to upgrade motors and there are several candidates available. I'm retired now and living on a fixed income so I can't afford the financial disasters that result when I make a mistake like the R 65. I got a total of about 20 flights from it and had disassembled it and replaced parts 4 times. The R 50 motor had the same problem to a lesser degree and the mods I did to it have extended its usefulness indefinitely. I have had expensive failures with high end motors and other RC products in the past so buying the best is not always foolproof. My first try at using a Lipo receiver battery cost me a $2000 airframe when the charger failed. At that time the Lipo checkers we all use now did not exist so I had to trust the charger. When it showed a green LED the battery was supposed to be charged. The little volt watch indicators used for ni-cads and NiMh cells will show green until 20 seconds before a Lipo is dead.
I now have 80 flights with the R 50 motor for power since I repaired it and it seems to be a good choice for a 40-50cc airframe. Others who have asked about the R 65 get my opinion that it is a very powerful motor with a short service life. I flew it with very large-high pitch props in heavy load conditions but its built -in vibration killed it.
I tell anyone who asks to look for the concentric bearing in a motor's design as a necessary feature in a quality motor. Anything less is crap.
The cost of replacing a GS airframe and most of its equipment is too much to trust to a part that has a cheaper cost as its selling point. We have enough to keep up with just with the brain f*+ts and thumb twitches we make that result in bad landings and crashes.
In the R 65's defense, I have reports from several pilots who have used this motor for a couple of years with good results, one claims that his motor makes the vibration noise on every take-off and he has never taken it apart. I would not have disassembled mine if I had not noticed excessive wear in the shaft bearings after 6 flights.

golfandfly

My Feedback: (99)

what is the CG for this plane?

CCFPILOT

4-9/16" [116mm] from the “break” in the leading edge of the wing, with the plane upside down.

mark IX

My Feedback: (9)

Yeah, Steve, I hear ya. I think the info you have posted here is invaluable when it comes to the learning curve of using the large 4 blade props with the 1/5 scale models we have talked about. I've always felt it was possible to do on these larger models, especially now with these large brushless motors that have recently become available. A key point in that learning process is the necessity of the concentric bearing config that you point out. For my Spitfire I will definetly consider that lesson learned. I am weighing using a Turnigy 160kV motor which has the concentric bearing vs. the E Flite P360 also using the concentric bearing, and 180kV, but nearly twice the cost. From what I have learned the motor with the lower kV is a better choice for the 22" 4 Blade that I want to use. Life's all about choices......

Mark

sjhanc

My Feedback: (3)

One of the pilots flying the new H 9 60cc P 51 D is using the P 360 with the 22.6 Varioprop and says he has radar clocked his plane at over 140 mph. He is using 10,000 mah 12s packs. The P 360 has a kv of 190 (I think that's correct), if so he may be turning that prop way over the manufacturers RPM rating of 4,800 RPM and is risking a destructive prop failure. My experience with the same Varioprop and a motor with a lower kv of 160 demonstrated over-revs above 5,000 any time I went above about 3/4 throttle and the fastest radar clocked speed I got was 125 mph. Now, my plane is over gross wt. at 29 lbs. and has an airfoil that is not very efficient when used on a plane with a high wing loading (53 ounces per square foot in my case). In spite of the extra drag caused by the high wing loading it still manages to fly too fast thanks to the clean NAA Mustang design, this was true of the full scale Mustang which was fast when overloaded but it had a high speed LIFTING airfoil.
My thinking that my ambition to fly Mustangs with 4 blade props had reached beyond max performance if the airframe was the TF GS version led me to buy the H 9 60 cc plane which, after last weeks first test flights proved to me that this new air frame could handle a higher level of performance with an actual lower wing loading and (with its Selig 8000 series lifting airfoil), offer lower take off and landing speeds making wear and tear on landing gear and wing structure at a much lower level than I presently experience with the TF plane.
Incidentally, my H 9 P 51 D only weighs 27 lbs. ready-to-fly and with a much more favorable wing loading. I have already noticed improved control sensitivity at all speeds and much lower TO and LDG speeds. My plan is to get another one, bash it into a B-C model and the power system will be electric 4 blade and with 10,000 mah packs will easily give me 10 minute duration. Part of the mods will be a top battery hatch so I don't have to remove the wing for pack changes. This electric configuration will come in at 35 lbs. or less and still have a reasonable wing loading. The H 9 plane has the best scale 3 views of all the ARF P 51 models available so less time will be needed to scale it out.

sjhanc

My Feedback: (3)

You are right about the kv of the P 369, it is 180. I have read a report from another pilot who got his by using 2 discount offers along with a free shipping offer and paid around $270 or $280 for it. That would put at about what I paid for the R 65 that sits in the junk box with the crash parts.

mark IX

My Feedback: (9)

Yeah, the H9 60cc P-51 looks quite good actually. I have been studying it closely. It's the right size as well. Although, I have heard there have been some quality issues and it looks like it requires a fair amount of assembly for an ARF. What engine is in your?

Mark

sjhanc

My Feedback: (3)

I was aware of the quality issues but no one complained about the wing or fuse breaking ( I experienced both of these with the TF version), and the main complaint was with the wing tubes not fitting very well or not at all so I decided to risk it. When I opened the box the only problems I found were the fit of the right wing tubes into the center section and the screw holes for the wing retaining tabs did not line up. After some careful measurements of the tubes the problem narrowed down to the r/r wing tube socket was glued into the center section at a 1/4 inch error inside near the flap access panel. Since the obvious solution was a time consuming return of everything in the wing box I decided to attempt to fix it myself. I removed 3 approx. 2x3 inch panel sections on the wing bottom over the tube socket and cut the fiberglass socket loose from the supporting ribs (3). After this I taped the center and r/h panel together and clamped the panels together using a straight piece of wood for alignment, then re-glued the tube socket in place using the aluminum tubes for proper fit. Next I reinforced the ribs with u-shaped air pieces of air-ply on both sides. It was all the same as fixing the problems with the TF wing. Time spent on the repair was sleeping on it deciding whether to fix or send it back then looking at it for a couple of hours and measuring it all. Then I used a Hobbico hot knife to remove the small access panels, then cut the ribs around the tube. It may be too much for the average ARF assembler but a kit builder would not find it difficult to fix. When I cut into the wing with the hot knife I did not remove the covering, just laid 1/2 inch wide strips of balsa under the wing skin for a glueing tab to replace the original small panels with covering. I resealed the edges of the covering with clear tape. It is noticeable if the wing is upside down on the stand but it will have to wait for later, if I ever get around to recovering the whole wing.
I wanted to see how it handled at the lightest wing loading so I installed my old faithful DA 50R, still in break-in mode since its last trip to DA to repair crash damage in Nov. 2011. Weight plus fuel came out at 27 lbs. and that included 8 ounces of lead to get it to the factory recommended CG. when I flew it a lot of up trim was required indicating a nose heavy condition and it wanted to nose over on take-off and landing rolls (easily controlled with some timely application of up elevator). It flew off the ground (grass) after a very short run of about 40 feet and I had not applied take-off power yet. I did not noticed the usual TF swing to the left when the tail came up and my impression of its handling was a sensitivity to control that was very nice but will require my increasing exponential to get smooth flight. The programming I used was the TF GS P 51 B that I have been flying for years, I just copied the B program to a new model in my JR 11X transmitter. Servos are the same Hitec 645Mgs I have used for years and the elevator servos had to be either the recommended ones or the Hitec 5245 digital I found on Amazon for about $40 each.
If you are interested in this plane find a friend who will give you some stick time on his and I promise you that you will start clearing the table for this plane.
It is going to replace my current fleet of TF P 51 models. I bought the Robart air powered gear from Horizon (includes the tail retract mechanism). These gear are not a bolt in installation, the mains required a lot of wood trimming and grinding of the retract frame to get them in and they need 2 large air tanks. I put 1 tank above the fuel tank and the second in the tail boom like the old TF B model. I needed to free up the mechanisms to get reliable operation but I have been doing that for years with these retracts in my TF B and D models. The tail retract bolts right in and works fine but I had to install a larger wheel to get the rudder off the ground, the larger wheel stops the gear doors from closing tight.

sjhanc

My Feedback: (3)

A considerable amount of time was spent on the cockpit details which look nice from a distance but are no where near scale. The cockpit is intended to fit a full pilot figure but I have decided to install a bust on a shelf so all that time spent is mostly wasted. Considering that this model would not qualify in the higher levels of scale competition any thing not visible from 15 feet is a waste of time. The exhaust detail can be made to look very nice with little effort. And the scale out lines are better than any other ARF and any TF Kits or ARF models I have built. The control hinging is excellent and the flap hinging is similar to the full scale but you have to stress test the fiber glass tab's mountings for proper gluing. This is a model you can take to the club field for fun and relaxation and it attracts a lot of attention.
The only thing that might stop it from being commonplace is the high cost of acquisition. The plane is advertised as being transportable on its gear, but for me it would take too much room sitting on its gear in my SUV, I couldn't get another plane in along side. I can fit the 2 fuses on either side on cradles, the full wings over head and all the other gear in the middle.
My plan is to buy another one and convert it to a B model electric-powered and my TF P 51 B will be a backup in case I wreck one.