stevta

My Feedback: (1)

I had a plane that I had to add down elevator to. I raised both ailerons a couple of turns of the clevis and that worked much better then adjusting the elevator.
Do you think this might work for these warbirds?
Steve

SteveBoy-RCU

OK Anderson, from what I glean from your learned input, the Mustang is a floater, whereas the Corsair is not and should be landed somewhat "hot".

That's good advise as I probably would have tried to land it slowly based on Mustang experience and stalled and damaged the thing.

stevta, I have heard you can up the ailerons to gain better control, but didn't know it effects the climb/dive attitude of the plane. Will have to think about that one. So to keep the nose down, I dial in up ailersons do I? Sounds like the other way around, but I am no expert.

Anderson

Steveboy,

What stevta is suggesting works almost the same as changing the incedence of the wing . If you have a plane that climbs you can dial in the (foilerons) ailerons to deflect the airplane down.

I'm a believer in Keeping it simple, you did the right thing when your mustang was climbing, trim the elevator. If you run out of down trim reposition the elevator accordingly after you land. If you are real picky change the incedence of the main wing.

Steve, regarding the flight charactoristics of these Kyosho models, the Mustang and Corsair are only slightly different they're both floaters, just one better than the other. They're easy to handle or I would have sold mine after a couple flights.I suspect you are as big a warbird fan as I and as such you always want to copy how they are flown. Fly both the Mustang and the Corsair in and land them on their main gear not hot but with some speed, it looks right and it's an excellent habbit to form.

SteveBoy-RCU

I am used to landing my trainers, high wing and low wing, at idle speed. My low wing comes down like a brick and I have to hold in up elevator.

With a wheels down landing on a warbird, do you mean coming in with a little throttle? If it doesn't come down do you use the elevator to point it down?

I guess the other alternative is to come in at idle, but cut the landing run short and dive for the runway. That way the speed will be up.

SteveBoy

Anderson

Steve,

Don't dive for the runway, your scarin' me here.
You've already landed the Mustang so you have some insite on what to expect, all you have to do is refine your technique by practicing.

You know how with your trainer you can slow it down so much you can probably catch it out of the air and when flying slow you can hold the attitude of the fuse at almost 30 degrees?
Don't do that with Mustang.


When you come in with the Mustang, come with a touch throttle and chop the throttle to idle when about 2 feet from the ground and let it settle while holding the attitude of the fuse at 0 degrees it will land on its mains and roll to a stop. Since you've shifted the balance point and corrected your climbing situation it( the Mustang) should behave similar to your low wing trainer.

SteveBoy-RCU

I went out Sunday for another trial flight. This time I got one of the club pro's to take it up. My original instructor actually.

Earlier issue were now sorted out, but some new ones developed.

The CG was now OK at 120 versus the earlier 130 mm. The plane flew fairly level with the elevator neutral being about 3 mm down. I had it set to about 4-5 mm, but trimmed it back to about 3 mm during flight.

Low rates on the ailersons were not really required, so we switched to high rates (per the book throws) and it flew nicely doing slow rolls, etc.

Now for the new issues. The fixed landing gear which I bent forward by about 1" seemed to have bent itself back to its original position over the the month or so between flights. Yes, it sounds weird, but the sprig steel must have sprung back because it was nosing over during taxiing like mad. Manual testing the nose over tendencies revealed this to be the case.

The twitching was still there, but we found it was due to intereference. Yes, we got hits all over the place. Te plane would fly staright then all of a sudden go up at 45o for a second. Same with the ailerons (aha, this is why I thought it was twitchy perhaps). The throttle too was a bit eratic.

Landing was OK, just nosed over at the end as expected with the undercarriage now forward.

We did a transmitter range check at ground level with engine on, and yes, flight surfaces were twitching and so was the throttle. The ground (grass) was wet. I did the same check a month before prior to its maiden flight and there was no twitching - BUT, the engine was off.

So, we suspect the steel throttle control lever contacting the steel pushrod. All my other planes have steel to plastic. Perhaps the vibration of the engine is causing the interference at this contact point. Any else had this experience? Anyway, I am going to change it over to a plastic clevis set-up.

The aerial has been carefully routed, but I will check this also the see if I can improve it.

So far, not a good experience with this plane. A good learning experience though nonetheless. Once I get Mustang sorted out the Corsair will be easier.

If the interence problem persists I will swap the receive to another one known to well. Down the track I may even investigate changing my TX to PCM.

Steve

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

Well, I put a number of flights on my me109 (by kyosho) this week end. Assuming that the wing design and moments are very close between all the Kyosho ARF's this may or may not be usfull to the rest of you.

Aileron - I started with the recommended high rate numbers with 40% expo. The ailerons were way to quick even with 40% expo, and a full deflection aileron role would be much to fast. I reduced the aileron throw mechanicaly to 3/4 of the original and that made the ailerons much more tollerable when making small adjustments. But still alittle fast in the aileron role compartment.

Elevator - I started with the recommended high rate saggested by the manufacturer and 40% expo.. I found the elevator to be almost useless on the ground with full elevator takeoffs and having to slowly release it through the entire down wind turn and down wind leg. I am using a Rossi .40 (turns 14.5k on a 10X6 prop.) that just came out of a 7# plane it flew very well. It acts like it is not enought engine for the plan on takeoff. I reduced the expo to 20% and that helped alot with the difficulty in making smooth manuvers. But loops were still more like figure nines, so I added 35% more elevator throw machanically. While this also improved the elevator feel, I still liken the feel to using a school bus to run a slolumn corse. I think alot of this is because of my engine selection not the kit.

Nose overs - I started with the wheels under the L.E. of the wing and with the old elevator settings the ground handling was abit nip & tuck. With the new elevator settings it is much better.

Flaps - I installed flaps, I was concerned how they would work on a 40 size modle? They work great! On a 100ft high, 1/2 throttle pass I hit the flaps right at center stage and it acted beutifully! The nose tracked streight (not loosing of gaining altitude) while the plane decellerated aprox. 20mph while at 1/2 throttle. Right infront of all the on lookers. I finished the trafic pattern and dove to the runway at that throttle setting. Finishing off with a nice three point landing.

Rudder - There is plenty of rudder to control this plane on the takeoff run, I have it set up for as much throw as I can get without banging into the elevators.

Overall - I am not fully comfortable with the plane yet. The elevator will get more mesaging as time goes on. The elevator does have 3-4mm of down elevator in its neutral position, but there is not much that can be done about that. I think that alot of the elevator problems I have with the modle are due to my puting a .40 in it.

does anyone have a good method to patch this covering?

SteveBoy-RCU

If you are not happy with the planes aerobatic performance I would change your prop to say a 11 x 6 or 11 x 7. You'll get better pulling power and take-offs, but probably less speed, although you may not notice the speed difference.

I like to run my engines around 11K and if you are pulling 14.5K from a 10 x 6, you don't have enough prop for this plane in my humble opinion.

In my Mustang I use a GMS 47 with a 11 x 7, no rpm data - but will meaure this soon. I also have a Seagull Roulettes PC-9 with a OS 46LA proped with a 11 x 6 @ 11K. I am hoping to put a 12 x 6 on my Corsair based on the large diamater fuselage (GMS 47).

Regards, Steve

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

Steve, This engine was made in 1978 and needs to turn some RPM's so the next time out I'm going to try a 10x8. It was on a kougar for almost 20 years with a 10x8 and realy hauled that plane around.

I'll let you know when it happends.

SteveBoy-RCU

OK, I understand what you mean about the rpms, you need to keep them up a bit for this engine.

You don't think though that if you are going to try a 10x7 or 10x8 that you might try a 11x6? You'll probably end up with the same rpm as with the higher pitch props, but better performance.

My 46LA really hauls around the sky (11x6 @ 11K). Onlookers come up to me and ask what size engine do I have and when I say 46LA, they are astounded. In fact the talk around the pits for while was that I was running a 46FX!

FYI is use 10% nitro.

I also have a Kyosho Spitfire which I flew for only a bit (trying to preserve it until my flying improves). This uses a 46LA too with a 11 x 6 and it flies very scale like. I did switch to more powerful engines for later models (GMS 47) as I think a little more power is justified.

However, I have seen some of these 40 sized models way overpowered, and to me, they look ridiculous at the speeds and manouvres they get up to, not to mention the large engines bulging out of the cowls.


Regards Steve.

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

Steve, let's look at the numbers:

My Rossi .40 turns a 10x6 prop at 14.5K so grinding that through the HP and MPH formulas yields that it is developing 1.3hp and can pull the plane around at 82 MPH in the straight and level. From my flights this far I would say that it is flying close to the formulated MPH and that is were I want it to fly.

That 11x6 prop on my engine would reduce the RPM's to 12.75K and the max straight and level speed to 72mph. Yes, I'll get off the ground better but the cruse will suffer. The 11x6 would be referred to as a climb prop.

I do not plan to fly this like a sport plane, If flown like a scale plane it will lumber into the sky and really not accelerate until the wheels are pulled up. I also have flaps so I need not worry about loss of disk from to high a pitch on the prop.

So looking at the 10x8 prop. On my engine would reduce the RPM's to 13150 but increase the max. Straight and level to 100mph (it would actually not fly there, probly stay around 80mph). This is a cruise prop. While the engine may come up to max RPM's faster there will be much more prop slippage but when given a chance to accelerate it will. Vertical will suffer but I feel not by much.

Formula's used:
MPH= (Pitch*RPM)/1056
Hp=((RPM*RPM*RPM)*(Dia*Dia*Dia*Dia)*Pitch)/140000000000000000

Pitch = prop. Pitch in in.
RPM = rotations per minute
Dia = prop. Diameter in in.


But the major reason for my picking the 10x8 over the 11x6 is that the Rossi was made in a different era, when noise was not a problem and mufflers were single expansion chambers and did not cause a great deal of resistance to flow. Today's engine has to be quieter so the manufacturers increased the stroke and reduced the bore to make the engines more tolerant of mufflers. As a byproduct of doing that they also become more torque-y. That allows you to turn an 11in prop. With ease. My engine would probably turn it but heat distipation would be a problem on those hot humid days and being a ringed engine over heating is the enemy.

Did you know that OS detunes their engines to get a more predictable run out of them? After I have run a full gallon of fuel through the engine and have a good dependable low speed Idle I remove the head from the engine. Between the head and the sleeve is a spacer, about 20 mils thick, I remove it and reassemble the engine. Once the head is tightened down fully remove the glow plug and turn the prop over. It should turn over normally, if there is interference it will not turn through TDC (I only run OS Max FX's and FP's to this point so you would be first LA, if you decide to try it). Then put in a non idle bar glow plug and turn it over again by hand and listen and feel for any interference. Removing that shim (spacer) will increase your Top end by 500-800 RPM's. In engines under .25 I also remove the muffler baffles, that will increas the DB's to around 95-96 (on a .25) which is comperable to most 40's today, and you will gain another 250-500 RPM's. I would not remove the baffle from a .40 or higher though.

SteveBoy-RCU

Yep, I agree with your thinking, but I thought you weren't happy with your plane's performce in terms of loops, etc. Hence my suggestion of a larger prop.

If its speed you're after, then you're doing the right thing and I undestand your explanation of the older engine's powerband. Sort of a compromise here.

My comments probably apply more to modern day 46 size engines.

I don't profess to be an expert and I find that experimentation is the best solution.


Steve

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

Steve, I haven't been able to figure out what is going on in the loops yet? It tracks normal into the first quarter but in the second quarter the elevator becomes more effective and if I don't let up on the elevator the radius will tighten up. Just like if I were loosing speed and the nose were falling out the top. But If I let up on the elevator in the second quarter of the loop it will fly a round loop all the way around.

I think my elevator throw is light but have not been able to find the distructions yet to check against. If the Elevator travel is low that would male it feel the way it does in a loop. I started with 10mm on either side of neutral, and have just increased the up throw to 13mm.

If the rain ever stops I'll try that out tomorrow. Its my bet that my up throw will be around 17-20mm before I'm happy with the way it flys

SteveBoy-RCU

Could it be the difference between doing loops upwind versus downwind?

During upwind loops the wind could catch the wing as it comes up to vertical, thus tending to flip it over backwards at a faster rate? Just a guess.

I tend to let the elevator out a bit during a loop to increase its arc on the exit, not in the first quarter though. so yours appears to steepen up early. You would need to ask a club expert to sort that one out.

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

Steve, there is alot more here than I' ve written about. Takeoffs while beutiful to watch take almost all the elevator. Loops track fine in the first quarter, what I object to is the amount of elevator I have to let off to round the loop. I need to pull about 3/4 elevator travel to start the loop in the first quarter, in the second quarter I reduce it gradually untill I reach neutral at the top. At first the flattening at the top surprised me then the next feeling I got was that it was like driving a bus, for elevator responce. This is typical of not enough elevator throw. After my last flight last week I increased the elevator throw and decreased the aileron.

I've since checked my owners manual and found that it calls for 15mm up and down for the elevator. The last three flights were flown with 10mm up and down looks like I reversed the ailerons and elevator movements. I would like to get out and see how it flys with the correct throws but it rained all last week and is scheduled to rain all this week. But if opertunity presents its self I'll be ready.

I'm hoping to get this thing right so I can show my son how to fly warbirds, he wants to fly the Zerolli Corsair at ralleys this year but he's ghot to learn how to handle flaps first.

SteveBoy-RCU

Let's hope that rain stops so you can tell us what happens.

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

Well, once the weatherman makes his prediction you can count on the opposit to happened, we had a top notch flying day today. Put two flights on the Me109 tonight Increased the elevator trim to 20mm and reduced the expo to 30%, and it still is like diving a tractor trailor in the wind. Takeoff takes half elevator, in the down wind turn I have to increase elevator to 2/3 of available. In the down wind I can relax the elevator to where I'm holding 1/4 up, which I'm holding right through the upwind pass and the second upwind turn. I retrim for the new setting and start ding low passes, I need to add more down trim for this to keep the nose from poping up from ground effect. I dive to the runway and start the low pass and it zoom climbs of the runway. More down trim and bring it back down for another low pass, its better but I still have to hold down in the last part of the pass. As the fuel burns off the nose starts to get light and it requires down trim, in an 8min. flight I have to add 10clicks of down to keep it flying straight. Second flight I added one click of elevator per min and two clickes on minutes 4 and 6 and that worked real well.

Final analysis. It is very sencitive to the feul level, prior to the next flight I will add 10 clicks of up elevator to see how the takeoff is with that. Then remove it as specified earlier that should give a much smoother flight. Looping problems were solved with the additional elevator. Ailerons are good. Flaps slow it down like breaks on a car. It will take so getting used to the amount of elevator work this model requires but its a keeper.

SteveBoy-RCU

Just wondering where your CG ended up? Did you set it up per the book or calculate your own?

My P-51D Mustang has it forward rather than backward in the tolerance range (120 mm, not the 130 mm maximum specified).

Did you find it twitchy to fly or was it fairly docile? Did you test it for tip stall?

My Mustang has been re-set-up and I am now waiting for the club expert to fly it. I have flown it before, but found it a handfull when badly set-up.


Steve

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

Steve, If yours is twitchy and the radio is solid. I would look at the elevator push rod, I replaced mine because of how poor a setup the one in the kit was. I want the elevator so that the only thing that can move it is the servo, but with the setup they gave me in the kit that is not the case. I gave the test for this in an earlier post to this thread, but the jist id that where the pushrod "Y"'s it needs to be anchored (prevented from moving left or right). I chose to replace the pushrod with something I knew wood work NYRODS ( ya they expand and contract with temp. but that is minor to what you will see with an anchored "Y").

An unanchored "Y" will make the model do things like out of the blue you get a week of aileron. One time you use the ailerons they give one rate of role the next time is always different. What is happening is as you fly the plane is subject to constantly changing yaw loads. We are not in the plane so we donot see most of this, but the pushrods do. Because it is tied to two points in the back (each of the elevator halves) it can move to one side of the fuse by deflecting one aileron more than the other(elevons) and you see the plane make a aileron movement that you did not give. So on colmn days the plane will be rock steddy and on windy days it will be a handfull.

Mine is rock solid! No funny blips I don't expect. Just alot of veriation in trim from full to empty tank. It is planed for flap training then mock dogfighting with my son. It will serve the flap training very well, but I need to get alot more manuverability from this crate to be competitive with Jason (my son). It seams to be rock steady with no unexpected detuors but is very lacking in the quick responce catagory. I've got to weight this plane because it flys like a 7#, I realize that my engine choise has alot to do with that but it came off a 6# Kougar that it flew better than the HB .40PDP, Enya .45CX, or the Super Tigre GS-45 that were on it prior, the difference was not even close. This plane is docile enough to be a trainer but all control inputs act like it is moving a great deal of mass. I will continue to increase the elevator untill I get snaps out of loops to see if that extra elevator changes this perception

I have not tested for tip stalls in the clean configuration. In the down and dirty configuration it is a ***** cat. I will have to test that in the clean configuration though because I got one burble teusday that looked like a stall while clean and at full power (so I figure it is just a pocket of air untill it does it again).

I do not like the fact that it will not grove! when I do low passes I start at normal settings and to finish the pass off (stay low) I need to hold more down elevator as the pass progresses. This is typical of flat bottomed / High lift airfoils so is the elevator neutral having so much down in it. I don't hold much hope that this is fixable without hacking up the model and recovering, so this is how it will stay.

Good luck!

SteveBoy-RCU

Yeah, I know what you mean about the push rods, but on this particular plane I think they are OK. I have had previous planes which had to be changed.

I did change the throttle rod because I was getting interference hits and I thought it could be the z-bend contact on the throttle lever (steel to steel). I changed it to plastic clevis. Haven't tested it yet.

The clue was that during a range check I got no twiching with the engine off, but did get twitching (of control surfaces and throttle) with the engine on. From now on I will always range check with the engine on.

This could be why the plane was a handfull in the air.

I juts remembered I have to go to a wedding this weekend, so the test fly won't take place until the Sunday after, so stay tuned.

If the plane turns out to be too hard to fly (although I don't think it will), I will dump the concept of warbirds and go fly something easier, although I am looking forward to the challenge.

Steve

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

Steve, I finally got it working correct! Apperently the engine had some undisolved gue inthe spray bar from the marvel mistry oil I add for storage because it went rich today. When I retunned it I was flying a different plane. All the elevator wows were gone, It groves nicely, it picked up another 10mph in horizontal and all the vertical problems were gone.

Ofcoarse I did have a freind step on the wing at the feild and that seamed to be the turning point for the model. I have 20mm up elevator and 12mm down with 30% exponential. Ailerons are set for 10mm up and down and 40% expo..

SteveBoy-RCU

I am glad all is OK, except for the wing, what a bummer. I always get nervous when onlookers come in too close and seem to step on every free spot around the plane, but the plane - it's only a matter of time. Your number must have come up.

hemi

My 109 has been a great flyer, its set right to specs has an OS46FX and is very smooth. The take off is the only thing that was tricky. It to wanted to nose over. It helped to move the centerline of the tire a little further foward. The cover is pretty bad. I'd prefer a good flat bas covering like Monokote flats and then the option of adding my own markings. You can't see the panel lines from the air anyway, but you sure can see the sags when its sitting on the flight line lookning like the saggy baggy elephant. I just started a kit bashing thead under ARF's for the Kyosho P40 I'm recovering.

thanks

SteveBoy-RCU

I have a saggy, baggy elephant too that is a Spitfire on cool days, but turns into the "elephant" on a hot summer's day.

I have heard somewhere that on a cold day the covering can pop (tear) with only the slightest of impact. I think it is only designed for moderate climates and not for the extremes of icy winters.

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

My Me109 not only has elephant skin but also no plastic covering I've come accross to date matches this paint scheam. Now after flight 12 as I was cleaning up I noticed the grime on my rag was not the usual color. Upon further investigation I realized that the paint, die, what ever they used is coming off the covering. Its probably just from those areas near the wing saddle that are woring against each other. So I'll have to pay closer attention the next time I'm cleaning her up.

Still alittle sponginess in the elevator. I'm going to tie the nyrods down in mid fuse to see if that will help.

Anybody recovered one of these things? What are your thoughts? I'm interested in how well it holds together, and if after 50-100 flights if it will be worth recovering? Or burning (the fate of my VQ macchi, last years ARF).