Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Warbirds and Warplanes
Reload this Page >

New Hangar 9 P-51 60cc

Notices
RC Warbirds and Warplanes Discuss rc warbirds and warplanes in this forum.

New Hangar 9 P-51 60cc

Old 08-28-2016, 09:28 AM
  #1351  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,960
Received 343 Likes on 274 Posts
Default

I doubt that motor would work on this plane and no, a spinner is not included
Old 08-28-2016, 04:30 PM
  #1352  
ADKer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Looks great sjhanc!
Old 08-28-2016, 04:35 PM
  #1353  
ADKer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bucho
Hi, I'm a TF P51 lover, but My old TF need To be replaced, I have the neumatic robart retracts with 5" aluminum wheels and a zenoah 45 Cc on it, Do you think I can use this stuff on the H9 ?
You may be able to use the retracts but I agree that the zenoah 45cc wouldn't be good. I used a Dave Brown spinner and painted it.
Old 08-28-2016, 08:11 PM
  #1354  
bucho
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: monterrey nuevo leon, MEXICO
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Thanks 4 your help. I think zenoah 63 will be the one, or any sugestion ? Best combo ? Wich combo is the Winer ?
Old 08-29-2016, 07:44 PM
  #1355  
sjhanc
My Feedback: (3)
 
sjhanc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: williston, FL
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Here is another low, slow pass. Picture by Mac.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1264.jpg
Views:	2698
Size:	2.54 MB
ID:	2178893  
Old 09-01-2016, 07:19 AM
  #1356  
sjhanc
My Feedback: (3)
 
sjhanc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: williston, FL
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

bucho, The TF retract mechanism will fit with a lot of cutting/grinding on the gear well and the retract's frame, but you will have to buy a set of Robart struts ($) for the H9 60 cc Mustang. If you don't mind the extra work to fit the gear into the wing you can save a little money there. The wheels you have will work fine. I was told that my DA 50r would not be powerful enough for this slightly larger plane but the results proved otherwise. The lighter airframe gross weight you end up with can have a better climb (at speed) and a higher top speed than the same plane with large engines bolted to the firewall that have drag-producing mufflers and cylinders protruding from the cowling. The H 9 wing's airfoil design is much better than the TF mustang's is (I have both planes), and because of the H9 Mustang wing's greater efficiency (better lift-over-drag airfoil), the model can be successfully flown with any motor or engine you can fit to it. Take into consideration the fact that that the TF ARF Mustang's engine cowling has a larger cross-section so bigger engines fit into IT easier.

The larger engines will climb off off the runway at a steeper angle (larger props) but their installation drag will hurt their top speed. The smaller engine's smaller props hurt initial climb at takeoff speed but better engine installation streamlining allows lighter gross weight and higher top speed and, lower takeoff and landing speeds. I think the DA 60 is the best compromise of the motor/engine possibilities but I also believe that high-output gas engines like the ZDZ 40 will fly this plane also, and won't be left behind in the gaggles.

Any motor/engine successfully used to fly the TF GS Mustang will perform better when installed in the H9 Mustang due to the difference in wing design. The bare H 9 Mustang airframe is lighter than the TF Mustang by several pounds. This gives the pilot of the H 9 plane a wider choice of power/equipment options, and the lighter, the better. If you take pains to install radio equipment so that it does not need ballast in the nose for CG, light gross weight is achievable and the payoff is better all-around performance. In pursuit of this, I have move the elevator servos up to the fuel tank area, replaced the heavy steel hinge rods with carbon fiber, installed a smaller, lighter, tail wheel, and left off the tail wheel doors. I had to go to my stock of old Sullivan carbon reinforced plastic push-rods (no longer in production, but the best push rods I have used) to find a lighter elevator control solution. And, (I can't emphasize this enough) engine cooling baffles are required, and the kit supplied baffle is not enough to do the job.

I have built and flown two H 9 60 cc Mustangs and both of them came out at 27 lbs 5 oz. ready-to-fly and no ballast was needed for CG. I bought the Robart pneumatic retracts for them but found that the retract's air cylinders (as supplied) were chosen for installation convenience but would not work in flight. I had to install longer air cylinders (from the TF retracts) and reverse the barrels to get in-flight reliability. The simple solution is to use the Eflite retracts and keep the airspeed VERY slow until they have cycled up OR down.

Last edited by sjhanc; 09-01-2016 at 08:02 AM.
Old 09-01-2016, 08:29 AM
  #1357  
sjhanc
My Feedback: (3)
 
sjhanc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: williston, FL
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default


This shot shows the comparatively clean engine installation of this particular model, (my second build of this plane). The gear doors can be seen to be pulled open by high speed air flow. This set of doors do not fit the wheel wells tightly as the first plane's did, they are warped in the wrong direction so they protrude down into the airflow even when the plane is on the ground. The door servo linkage is over-center when the doors are closed so there is no current draw on the receiver battery when airflow pulls them further down and my door servos act on the door's leading edges rather than the trailing edge (as the manual shows). To accomplish this I moved the servos to the empty space in the wheel well right behind the wing leading edge. This allows the fuel tank to be installed rearward at the CG. The rear tank installation really helps the full-fuel CG and there is no pitch change with speed changes. I am considering reinforcing the doors and correcting their incorrect shape to force them to lay flush with the lower wing surface.

My first plane's doors laid flat and did not get sucked down by high speed airflow even though they were not reinforced. I did try heating this set and bending them in the right direction but the first exposure to the hot sun caused them to return to their original shape. If they were fiber glass construction heating and bending would be permanent.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1280.jpg
Views:	2588
Size:	1.13 MB
ID:	2179205  
Old 09-03-2016, 05:42 AM
  #1358  
Futterama
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Them, DENMARK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi, can anyone tell me the inner and outer diameter of the main wing tubes? Just the big ones in the middle of the wing.

Last edited by Futterama; 09-03-2016 at 06:34 AM.
Old 09-03-2016, 07:08 AM
  #1359  
BUDMAN27
 
BUDMAN27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

best I can tell with these 55 year old eyes is OD 32 mm and ID 30 mm.
Old 09-03-2016, 07:45 AM
  #1360  
Futterama
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Them, DENMARK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

BUDMAN27, many thanks.
Old 09-07-2016, 10:45 AM
  #1361  
BUDMAN27
 
BUDMAN27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have the E-flite electric retracts installed in my H9 p 51 60cc. I pluged the retract programmer in and it keeps telling me to please connect gear ct 1 board. well if its talking about the retract controller than i already have it connected. any ideal whats going on ?
Old 09-09-2016, 02:46 PM
  #1362  
BUDMAN27
 
BUDMAN27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

nevermind its working now.
Old 09-11-2016, 05:34 PM
  #1363  
BUDMAN27
 
BUDMAN27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have the E-flite retracts for my H9P51 and I have it working prity good. when I turn power off and then turn it back on it seems like I have to reprogram it to work , so will i have to reprogram it every time I want to fly the plane ?
Old 09-11-2016, 05:56 PM
  #1364  
ADKer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

You shouldn't have to reprogram, my biggest problem with the retracts was I never plugged the tail retract in and it never worked properly, but when I had all the mains and tail plugged in it all worked.
Old 09-11-2016, 09:36 PM
  #1365  
BUDMAN27
 
BUDMAN27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

cool. i will run with that, Thanks.
Old 09-21-2016, 01:32 PM
  #1366  
BUDMAN27
 
BUDMAN27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

is it better to put the fuel tank over cg or all the way forward behind the engine ? thanks in advance.
Old 09-21-2016, 02:54 PM
  #1367  
BUDMAN27
 
BUDMAN27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I don,t get it. when i plug my e-flite gear into the programmer it works fine ,but when i plug into my Futaba 18sz channle 5 gear it does not work. any ideals ?
Old 09-22-2016, 04:42 AM
  #1368  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,960
Received 343 Likes on 274 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BUDMAN27
I don,t get it. when i plug my e-flite gear into the programmer it works fine ,but when i plug into my Futaba 18sz channle 5 gear it does not work. any ideals ?
Check the transmitter settings, I don't know Futaba (unless you count the 9c lol) but I seem to remember some kind of speed setting messing with stuff like retract controllers.
Old 09-22-2016, 05:32 AM
  #1369  
sjhanc
My Feedback: (3)
 
sjhanc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: williston, FL
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

BUDMAN2,
You need to plug the receiver's gear channel into the controller, then all of the retracts and door servo connectors into the controller output ports. If you try to run the door servos off of the receiver it would be 1) a y harness from the gear channel, one side connected to EITHER another y to the doors, or 2) to a JR Matchbox, then to the doors (full servo reversing, and endpoint adjustment), then the remaining side of the first y to the retract's controller. These last two options would open-close the doors but not in the P-51 sequence. To get the scale P-51 sequence all servos and retracts need to go directly to a controller.

I have heard of a transmiiter type (brand) that lets you get sequenced gear and door control directly from the radio (using multiple channels) but can't remember what brand. I have used my JOMAR controller for both air and electric retracts with both air and/or electric door control from the JOMAR controller using two servo driven ROBART air control valves, I don't know if the Eflite retracts would be compatible with the JOMAR.

I know that the Futaba has some different servo directions from other brands but that doesn't change the way this is done, just the need to reverse some servos in the transmitter's servo direction menu. And you need to make sure the transmitter's gear channel is set to subtrim=0 and endpoints to 100% to start. The Eflite controller may need specific changes to these settings, I think I remember reading something in my brother's Eflite instructions about that. You have connected the door servos directly to the controller-programmer and adjusted them to work properly, then unpugged them from the controller (loss of programming) and into the gear channel expecting the servos to retain the programming-this ain't going to work.
Old 09-26-2016, 04:16 AM
  #1370  
SWORDSN
My Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: WILLIAMSTON, SC
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BUDMAN27
is it better to put the fuel tank over cg or all the way forward behind the engine ? thanks in advance.
Most all warbirds have the tank forward of cg
Old 09-26-2016, 07:49 PM
  #1371  
sjhanc
My Feedback: (3)
 
sjhanc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: williston, FL
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Except for P-51s, which have almost all of their fuel load behind the CG. There are no fuel tanks at or in front of the CG unless they carry external tanks, which are placed centered on the CG. After I test flew my first TF GS D model, I moved the fuel tank back to within 1 inch of the CG to stop the constant nose-over broken-prop expense. After 7 TF Mustangs and 2 H 9 Mustangs I still operate them with the fuel load on the CG. They are much easier to operate and cheaper without all of the broken props.

Last edited by sjhanc; 09-26-2016 at 07:55 PM.
Old 09-27-2016, 05:34 AM
  #1372  
radfordc
My Feedback: (14)
 
radfordc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lansing, KS
Posts: 1,598
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Although every model I have has the fuel tank stuffed in the nose I agree that it would be better to have it on or near the CG. Old habits die hard.
Old 09-27-2016, 08:53 AM
  #1373  
BUDMAN27
 
BUDMAN27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

ok just want to thank you guys for helping with my retracts. come to find out what was the prob. I was not saving the dada. the gear go up and down and the doors open and close as they are sapose to now.
Old 09-30-2016, 04:42 AM
  #1374  
SWORDSN
My Feedback: (13)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: WILLIAMSTON, SC
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sjhanc
Except for P-51s, which have almost all of their fuel load behind the CG. There are no fuel tanks at or in front of the CG unless they carry external tanks, which are placed centered on the CG. After I test flew my first TF GS D model, I moved the fuel tank back to within 1 inch of the CG to stop the constant nose-over broken-prop expense. After 7 TF Mustangs and 2 H 9 Mustangs I still operate them with the fuel load on the CG. They are much easier to operate and cheaper without all of the broken props.
We are talking models aren't we. All of my model warbirds have the tank in front of the CG.That is what the plans call for. It may perform better if closer to CG .Mine are all ARFs,except the Ziroli B25 I'm now building.The ARFs would require a lot of mods to move the tank.Just my 2cents.

Last edited by SWORDSN; 09-30-2016 at 04:58 AM.
Old 09-30-2016, 06:58 AM
  #1375  
sjhanc
My Feedback: (3)
 
sjhanc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: williston, FL
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

I was referring to the full scale P-51's fuel tank design location. Back when I was breaking a prop every 4 flights with the tank in the manufacturer's recommended location, up behind the firewall, and had tried all of the "expert's" fixes for nose over problems, I took a look at the full scale plane to see if there were any clues to a solution there. When I realized that all full scale P-51 aircraft always flew with the fuel behind the CG I decided to give that a try. The full scale plane's horizontal stabilizer-to-wing-area ratio is larger than most other comparable A/C so I thought that maybe the design engineers had done that to increase the horizontal stab's lifting ability. They had also made the elevator's leading edge thicker than the stab's trailing edge AND had contoured the elevator's leading edge to allow smooth hinge-line air flow at all elevator deflection angles. I am an old sailplane flier and had seen similar design features applied to glider control surfaces for competition gliders.

I researched P-51 test flight and design data but could not find any mention of airframe design referring to the tail group except for the high speed-low drag tip designs (which are different from the wing tip design). Axis warplane designers had studied captured P-51 airframes and had even flown them trying to discover the P-51's secrets but never attempted to copy what they saw. I knew that in order to successfully control a glider at rearward CG locations (for much better slow speed thermalling ability) changes in tail group shape and total effective area are required. And, I was already flying my competition gliders at a 45% CG location.

We modelers all know what happened to the P-51's flight stability when the extra rear tank was installed behind the pilot, but the Allied Generals decreed that the tail heavy condition that resulted was an acceptable risk compared to the additional long range benefit that was realised. Some units limited the amount of fuel allowed to be carried in the fuselage's rear tanks to lower the risk to pilots.

Since I was able to balance my P-51 models on the TF recommended CG and the rearward tank installation would never affect the CG, I started using it and never looked back. I no longer use glow motors so there is no need to place the tank near the carbureter. The only reason to place the tank near the firewall is to ease the glow carb's poor fuel-draw problem.

I can't say that I never have a nose-over but if it happens, it is because of a procedure mistake on my part, not a nose heavy plane. At one point I asked the APC prop manufacturer if there was a total time limitation on model props like all full scale propellers have. They replied that since most props are destroyed at low flight time in nose over accidents they didn't think a total time was needed. At that time several of the props I had been using had several hundred flights and a couple are still being used today. The smaller 20 inch size I had used when flying a 40cc gas engine are still good but I no longer use engines that small.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.