TF 1/5 Scale P-51 ARF Assembly (1ST MISHAP!!!)
05-02-2016, 02:27 AM
#3827
My Feedback: (53)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good news is that these arfs are very mod-able and easy to fix. Most China arfs, once you ding them hard, you can't easily fix them. Also the price is still reasonable in my opinion.
05-02-2016, 07:37 AM
#3828
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chris 923
Another question for you. Why does TF P-51 ARF have you mount the gas tank so far forward of the CG line. I have always mounted the center of the tank on the CG or maybe a 1/4in. forward of the CG. Kind of like a electric plane, once you set the CG it never changes. Empty tank or full, the CG some what stays the same. With that said is the 116mm shown in the manual the correct CG set point from the LE. The reason I ask. I used two different CG formulas and both came up up with a different CG placement.. I used used both 25% MAC and 30% MAC and could not come close to the 116mm. The reason I ask I have not heard anyone complain about the CG at 116mm. From my past experience building China models, I notice they tend to make the CG setting quite nose heavy on most of their planes. And on this plane, P-51, with the tank that far forward, I would think you would run out of control surface at landing speed, even if you were on high rate. IMHO.
Another question for you. Why does TF P-51 ARF have you mount the gas tank so far forward of the CG line. I have always mounted the center of the tank on the CG or maybe a 1/4in. forward of the CG. Kind of like a electric plane, once you set the CG it never changes. Empty tank or full, the CG some what stays the same. With that said is the 116mm shown in the manual the correct CG set point from the LE. The reason I ask. I used two different CG formulas and both came up up with a different CG placement.. I used used both 25% MAC and 30% MAC and could not come close to the 116mm. The reason I ask I have not heard anyone complain about the CG at 116mm. From my past experience building China models, I notice they tend to make the CG setting quite nose heavy on most of their planes. And on this plane, P-51, with the tank that far forward, I would think you would run out of control surface at landing speed, even if you were on high rate. IMHO.
05-02-2016, 08:05 AM
#3829
My Feedback: (133)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Keizer,
OR
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one of the problems as is the type of glue and the lack of it, it's a hit and miss thing. the other problem is the people building these 51's are not experienced model builders but are just work cheap factory workers, plus i don't think TF gives a d**n as long as guys keep buying these arf's. TF blames every thing and everyone for failures, too big engs, flying too fast, etc!!!!!!! so TF refuses to demand higher standards from their kit builders in china. i've gone back to building kits. but then i'm now retired and have the time to do so. if u don't mind buying this arf and upgrading on the wing, firewall, horz. stab, etc then all is good. just my 3 cents worth.
05-02-2016, 02:05 PM
#3831
My Feedback: (53)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chris 923
Another question for you. Why does TF P-51 ARF have you mount the gas tank so far forward of the CG line. I have always mounted the center of the tank on the CG or maybe a 1/4in. forward of the CG. Kind of like a electric plane, once you set the CG it never changes. Empty tank or full, the CG some what stays the same. With that said is the 116mm shown in the manual the correct CG set point from the LE. The reason I ask. I used two different CG formulas and both came up up with a different CG placement.. I used used both 25% MAC and 30% MAC and could not come close to the 116mm. The reason I ask I have not heard anyone complain about the CG at 116mm. From my past experience building China models, I notice they tend to make the CG setting quite nose heavy on most of their planes. And on this plane, P-51, with the tank that far forward, I would think you would run out of control surface at landing speed, even if you were on high rate. IMHO.
Another question for you. Why does TF P-51 ARF have you mount the gas tank so far forward of the CG line. I have always mounted the center of the tank on the CG or maybe a 1/4in. forward of the CG. Kind of like a electric plane, once you set the CG it never changes. Empty tank or full, the CG some what stays the same. With that said is the 116mm shown in the manual the correct CG set point from the LE. The reason I ask. I used two different CG formulas and both came up up with a different CG placement.. I used used both 25% MAC and 30% MAC and could not come close to the 116mm. The reason I ask I have not heard anyone complain about the CG at 116mm. From my past experience building China models, I notice they tend to make the CG setting quite nose heavy on most of their planes. And on this plane, P-51, with the tank that far forward, I would think you would run out of control surface at landing speed, even if you were on high rate. IMHO.
I like to put my tanks where I can get at them and I only use Roto Flow tanks.
Most other fliers think I'm nuts. But it all works for me.
05-02-2016, 04:01 PM
#3832
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris 923
Thanks for the pic.
I have my tank just about 2 inch further back ,aft, then yours, other then that,my receiver and power panel and battery's are about the same location as yours. I have not done the 10 degree dihedral . How did you set it to 10 degrees without adding a wedge to the bottom of the wing. I can see you need to remove material on the wing joiner to make the 10 deg dihedral. Do you have any pics on how you accomplished the 10 degree setup?
Also I think I read for guys that do not raise the stab for scale still need to make the leading edge of the stab 1/8 in higher to prevent having to trim the elevator a lot . Is this correct in what I was reading?
So 4.56 inches is correct, great. 116mm is the CG.
Thanks for the pic.
I have my tank just about 2 inch further back ,aft, then yours, other then that,my receiver and power panel and battery's are about the same location as yours. I have not done the 10 degree dihedral . How did you set it to 10 degrees without adding a wedge to the bottom of the wing. I can see you need to remove material on the wing joiner to make the 10 deg dihedral. Do you have any pics on how you accomplished the 10 degree setup?
Also I think I read for guys that do not raise the stab for scale still need to make the leading edge of the stab 1/8 in higher to prevent having to trim the elevator a lot . Is this correct in what I was reading?
So 4.56 inches is correct, great. 116mm is the CG.
Last edited by rampage-1; 05-02-2016 at 04:04 PM.
05-02-2016, 04:04 PM
#3833
My Feedback: (133)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Keizer,
OR
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, all my wings have be fixed to the correct dihedral of 10 degs. The arf dihedral is 5-6 degs. I like my warbirds a little nose heavy. I just finish a new Mustang with a DLE 55 rear exhaust. I needed to put 8oz in the nose to balance it. Manuel say 4" 9/16. I have used that number for ever. I also reinforce the top of the nose of the arf from the inside.
I like to put my tanks where I can get at them and I only use Roto Flow tanks.
I always balance with an empty tank, gear up. When I put the plane on the balancer and get it dead level. Than I add just enough to get it to start tipping nose heavy and I stop. Because of the dihedral my Mustangs land and settle easily. 
Most other fliers think I'm nuts. But it all works for me.
I like to put my tanks where I can get at them and I only use Roto Flow tanks.
Most other fliers think I'm nuts. But it all works for me.
05-02-2016, 04:25 PM
#3834
Well I've ordered one... Will be here tomorrow. Power will be a 70cc four stroke. Still need to order retracts (Robart 622e's (?) and aluminum wheels. 10 spoke? So off to read all the recent post. One thing I DO like about TF is they have been around ... Maybe not the most scale ... But longevity means a lot.
05-02-2016, 04:41 PM
#3835
My Feedback: (53)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris 923
Thanks for the pic.
I have my tank just about 2 inch further back ,aft, then yours, other then that,my receiver and power panel and battery's are about the same location as yours. I have not done the 10 degree dihedral . How did you set it to 10 degrees without adding a wedge to the bottom of the wing. I can see you need to remove material on the wing joiner to make the 10 deg dihedral. Do you have any pics on how you accomplished the 10 degree setup?
Also I think I read for guys that do not raise the stab for scale still need to make the leading edge of the stab 1/8 in higher to prevent having to trim the elevator a lot . Is this correct in what I was reading?
So 4.56 inches is correct, great. 116mm is the CG.
Thanks for the pic.
I have my tank just about 2 inch further back ,aft, then yours, other then that,my receiver and power panel and battery's are about the same location as yours. I have not done the 10 degree dihedral . How did you set it to 10 degrees without adding a wedge to the bottom of the wing. I can see you need to remove material on the wing joiner to make the 10 deg dihedral. Do you have any pics on how you accomplished the 10 degree setup?
Also I think I read for guys that do not raise the stab for scale still need to make the leading edge of the stab 1/8 in higher to prevent having to trim the elevator a lot . Is this correct in what I was reading?
So 4.56 inches is correct, great. 116mm is the CG.
Last year a had a Mustang die in flight and it went straight down into concrete. The only thing left of the wing was the complete spar box from end to end and the whole center section where the wing was joined. I have not done the tail mod, I will on my next B Model.
05-02-2016, 04:44 PM
#3836
My Feedback: (53)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I've ordered one... Will be here tomorrow. Power will be a 70cc four stroke. Still need to order retracts (Robart 622e's (?) and aluminum wheels. 10 spoke? So off to read all the recent post. One thing I DO like about TF is they have been around ... Maybe not the most scale ... But longevity means a lot.
05-02-2016, 05:39 PM
#3837
Yeah Chris I was guessing it would be like the FW190 mods. Seriously considering contacting Robart to have them do it for me and get them rite. They had the wrong ones listed for the 60 size. I contacted them but I think it's still Wong on the list. *shaking head*.
05-02-2016, 05:48 PM
#3839
My Feedback: (53)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Chris I was guessing it would be like the FW190 mods. Seriously considering contacting Robart to have them do it for me and get them rite. They had the wrong ones listed for the 60 size. I contacted them but I think it's still Wong on the list. *shaking head*.
05-02-2016, 05:51 PM
#3840
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just got back from visiting a neighbor down the street who is building a RV-8, full scale. He also has a few of the T-6 Aeroshell planes at house that he maintains for air shows. Any how I was asking Gene McNeely about the P-51 dihedral . Make a long story short a guy across the way has one,P-51, and he said the dihedral on the real plane is 6 degrees. But like he said just because a real one is 6 degrees does not mean a 10 degrees for a RC plane is a bad idea. He said when you scale down to 1/5 scale other things have to change to make a RC plane fly correctly.
With that said, you might be on to something that has improved the flight characteristics of the TF P-51.
In other words, a positive dihedral angle tends to increase stability, while a negative dihedral angle tends to increase maneuverability. These both have their applications, as stability is desirable for passenger and cargo planes and the like, while maneuverability is preferable for fighter aircraft. I think I rather have the TF more stable like your flying. I just checked my 33% Pawnee Hangar9 and it is a little over 10 degrees
With that said, you might be on to something that has improved the flight characteristics of the TF P-51.
In other words, a positive dihedral angle tends to increase stability, while a negative dihedral angle tends to increase maneuverability. These both have their applications, as stability is desirable for passenger and cargo planes and the like, while maneuverability is preferable for fighter aircraft. I think I rather have the TF more stable like your flying. I just checked my 33% Pawnee Hangar9 and it is a little over 10 degrees
Last edited by rampage-1; 05-02-2016 at 06:02 PM.
05-02-2016, 05:59 PM
#3842
OK. I will stick w Robart. Sorry for confusion. I have the 60 size also with a YS 170DZ and Robart had the gear wrong in their list ... The electrics have been flawless for the last 2+ years. I am going to ask Robart to make the mods. Why... So they will know it needs to be done
05-02-2016, 06:11 PM
#3843
My Feedback: (53)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just got back from visiting a neighbor down the street who is building a RV-8, full scale. He also has a few of the T-6 Aeroshell planes at house that he maintains for air shows. Any how I was asking Gene McNeely about the P-51 dihedral . Make a long story short a guy across the way has one,P-51, and he said the dihedral on the real plane is 6 degrees. But like he said just because a real one is 6 degrees does not mean a 10 degrees for a RC plane is a bad idea. He said when you scale down to 1/5 scale other things have to change to make a RC plane fly correctly.
With that said, you might be on to something that has improved the flight characteristics of the TF P-51.
In other words, a positive dihedral angle tends to increase stability, while a negative dihedral angle tends to increase maneuverability. These both have their applications, as stability is desirable for passenger and cargo planes and the like, while maneuverability is preferable for fighter aircraft. I think I rather have the TF more stable like your flying. I just checked my 33% Pawnee Hangar9 and it is a little over 10 degrees
With that said, you might be on to something that has improved the flight characteristics of the TF P-51.
In other words, a positive dihedral angle tends to increase stability, while a negative dihedral angle tends to increase maneuverability. These both have their applications, as stability is desirable for passenger and cargo planes and the like, while maneuverability is preferable for fighter aircraft. I think I rather have the TF more stable like your flying. I just checked my 33% Pawnee Hangar9 and it is a little over 10 degrees
05-02-2016, 08:05 PM
#3844
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stand Corrected about what. I think you came upon, what could be a great improvement for the TF P-51 84.5in plane. With the 10 deg. it may not have the best roll out, but I will take the stable landings any day of the week. I was at Top Gun last weekend and I saw more P-51's nose over or balance down the runway then I care to talk about.
The stab is a little higher with the tail on the scale plane as you mentioned earlier
The stab is a little higher with the tail on the scale plane as you mentioned earlier
Last edited by rampage-1; 05-02-2016 at 08:07 PM.
05-02-2016, 08:21 PM
#3845
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris as you can tell I am just now getting into building the TF P-51 that is why so many questions. I have built two Bud Nosen kits P-51 103in. That was back in the day when 1/4 scale planes were popular. But, as of late I have been building just ARF's--Just finished a 25% Bill Hempel Pawnee and a 33% Hangar9 Pawnee. From what I can tell with the TF P-51 the factory did a nice job on the fit and design of the plane. But used grade 4 wood. This is the softest wood I think I have ever worked with. The reason I was so interested in the TF P-51 was do to, the all wood construction. I had just finished a KMP AT-6 that is all fiberglass 84 inch. The plane is a heavy one. Nice but not for the average flyer. 60cc with electric starter weights in at 30lbs +.
The Top Flite Giant P-51 84.5 inch has been around for a long time. What surprises me the most, this is the only good build thread that I could find on this plane.
The Top Flite Giant P-51 84.5 inch has been around for a long time. What surprises me the most, this is the only good build thread that I could find on this plane.
Last edited by rampage-1; 05-02-2016 at 09:10 PM.
05-02-2016, 08:38 PM
#3846
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I've ordered one... Will be here tomorrow. Power will be a 70cc four stroke. Still need to order retracts (Robart 622e's (?) and aluminum wheels. 10 spoke? So off to read all the recent post. One thing I DO like about TF is they have been around ... Maybe not the most scale ... But longevity means a lot.
What 4 stroke motor are you using?
05-03-2016, 06:05 AM
#3848
My Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QIUOTE=ThunderBoat42;12209315]
The Tp70 that's popular in Europe. Not bad for $600, I got 2 of them for testing and working on distributor.[/QUOTE]
Is this motor for the Top Flite P-51 84.5in ARF?
Also what is the blue anodize item? Is that a finned head for the TP-70cc.
Also, you better buy a muffler, the motor does not sound so good on a warplane without one IMHO.
Is this motor for the Top Flite P-51 84.5in ARF?
Also what is the blue anodize item? Is that a finned head for the TP-70cc.
Also, you better buy a muffler, the motor does not sound so good on a warplane without one IMHO.
Last edited by rampage-1; 05-03-2016 at 07:29 AM.
05-03-2016, 07:35 AM
#3849
Yes. It comes with 2 sets of standoff's ... 2 intake tubes etc. yes the blue anodized is a second finned valve cover. Reaching out to Kelo on exhaust. Agree it would sound closer to scale on a radial warbird in the air.
update on gear. Talked with my contact at Robart. They have updated the gear and using some stronger material. Also they have added the second block w the FW gear.
I need to find a pilot, cockpit kit and order a spinner cut for the Biela prop and we should be off and ready to build. UPS shows delivery today.
update on gear. Talked with my contact at Robart. They have updated the gear and using some stronger material. Also they have added the second block w the FW gear.
I need to find a pilot, cockpit kit and order a spinner cut for the Biela prop and we should be off and ready to build. UPS shows delivery today.