Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
06-17-2004, 02:36 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orlando,
FL
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
I'm currenlty in the process of transitioning from the .46 size warbirds to the .60/.90 size (2 cycle) and, honestly, after two flights, have lost my nerve. I was literally scared to death flying the bigger birds and my initial observations were that they flew much "heavier" than the smaller birds. In addition, the implementation of flaps and retracts were just something else to "worry" about. Is this a natural progression? Are there any tips that can be shared as to be better prepared mentally for what I can expect to see in the air flying larger warbirds? I would eventually like to move up to the big Ziroli, Bates etc. models eventually.
Thanks for the advice and help!
Pat
Thanks for the advice and help!
Pat
06-17-2004, 04:04 PM
#3
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
I remember when I was flying the smaller birds and began the transition. It was scary at first and took a while to get used to. However the biggest reason is primarily in our heads. When taking on bigger, heavier and more complex models the normal tendancy at first is to fear these new models. This fear translates into an actual loss of pilot proficency which may make one think that the model is more difficult to fly. Actually bigger and heavier models fly better.
There is a learning curve that needs to be addressed in my opinion and the only way to do so is to get stick time. Also I think it is important to understand that when you move on to the next levels, the model will allow less and less pilot laziness or errors. A .40 sized model allows a pilot to do things that you could not get away with in a larger model. I would advise a new warbird pilot to first practise and master a model he or she is comfortable with. And by master, I mean able to fly the model in very distinct and predescribed manners including slow flight (especially this). When you can put that smaller model right where you want it every time, take off and land with precision and fly it at vastly reduced power settings (flying scale) you will move into that next model easier. Confidence must be built along with your flying skills.
Also added features such as flaps, retracts, brakes, seperate steering control, mixture controls, bomb drops and so on can, if the pilot is not ready to move up, act to further over load the pilots ability. My first scale model had flaps but I was so afraid of them (because I didn't quite understand their use) that I almost never used them. Now I can't imagine flying a scale model such as a warbird without them. It wasen't until The flying of the model became second nature that I began to expand my flying abilities.
If you went to an airport to take some flying lessons they would probably start you in a tiny single engine fixed gear type of aircraft rather than a 747. But no one would deny that the 747 flies better and is actually easier for the pilot to handle. Flying skills must be learned and honed before adding to the pilot load. I doubt if there is any 747 driver (maybe some here) that stop to think that they are flying an aircraft with a wing loading of 200 pounds per square foot, it comes with the territory.
Keep flying - you'll do fine.
My two cents.
There is a learning curve that needs to be addressed in my opinion and the only way to do so is to get stick time. Also I think it is important to understand that when you move on to the next levels, the model will allow less and less pilot laziness or errors. A .40 sized model allows a pilot to do things that you could not get away with in a larger model. I would advise a new warbird pilot to first practise and master a model he or she is comfortable with. And by master, I mean able to fly the model in very distinct and predescribed manners including slow flight (especially this). When you can put that smaller model right where you want it every time, take off and land with precision and fly it at vastly reduced power settings (flying scale) you will move into that next model easier. Confidence must be built along with your flying skills.
Also added features such as flaps, retracts, brakes, seperate steering control, mixture controls, bomb drops and so on can, if the pilot is not ready to move up, act to further over load the pilots ability. My first scale model had flaps but I was so afraid of them (because I didn't quite understand their use) that I almost never used them. Now I can't imagine flying a scale model such as a warbird without them. It wasen't until The flying of the model became second nature that I began to expand my flying abilities.
If you went to an airport to take some flying lessons they would probably start you in a tiny single engine fixed gear type of aircraft rather than a 747. But no one would deny that the 747 flies better and is actually easier for the pilot to handle. Flying skills must be learned and honed before adding to the pilot load. I doubt if there is any 747 driver (maybe some here) that stop to think that they are flying an aircraft with a wing loading of 200 pounds per square foot, it comes with the territory.
Keep flying - you'll do fine.
My two cents.
06-17-2004, 04:53 PM
#4
My Feedback: (5)
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
bart- what 60-90 size warbird do you have (who made the kit?)? if we know details about it we could offer more specific advice. how much does it weigh? what engine does it have?
was it built from a kit or is it an arf? if built from a kit did you build it? is it built STRAIGHT - that is, per the plans but no warps in the wings (warbirds with wing warps often die early deaths). however a good first warbird (and a lot, but not all, of large scale warbirds) will usually have washout designed into the wings to minmize the tendency to stall one wing and snap at low speeds. with washout the wing trailing edge will be slightly higher than the wing center section when you look down the wing.
also- it might help if you found an experienced warbird pilot to fly it at first, if it bothers you to fly it.
the more info we have the better advice we can give.
ed
was it built from a kit or is it an arf? if built from a kit did you build it? is it built STRAIGHT - that is, per the plans but no warps in the wings (warbirds with wing warps often die early deaths). however a good first warbird (and a lot, but not all, of large scale warbirds) will usually have washout designed into the wings to minmize the tendency to stall one wing and snap at low speeds. with washout the wing trailing edge will be slightly higher than the wing center section when you look down the wing.
also- it might help if you found an experienced warbird pilot to fly it at first, if it bothers you to fly it.
the more info we have the better advice we can give.
ed
06-17-2004, 07:33 PM
#5
Banned
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 7,744
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
get something like a Flair Astrohog and modify it for retracts, easy enough to do as it is a big straight wing. Put a good size donk in the nose, say a .91 FS and then ADD weight to increase the wingloading once you are familiar with the plane.
The Hog is a great transistion plane and as a taildragger is good practice before going to bigger warbirds. By adding in say 2lbs of weight you will increase the wingloading to simulate a warbird. Actually the roll rate on the hog is about the same as a warbird.
I have one and I still fly it for fun. Don't let people tell you it's an old design so it's no good. Yes it was designed mid 50s but is a great flyer
cheers
Peter
The Hog is a great transistion plane and as a taildragger is good practice before going to bigger warbirds. By adding in say 2lbs of weight you will increase the wingloading to simulate a warbird. Actually the roll rate on the hog is about the same as a warbird.
I have one and I still fly it for fun. Don't let people tell you it's an old design so it's no good. Yes it was designed mid 50s but is a great flyer
cheers
Peter
06-17-2004, 08:07 PM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orlando,
FL
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
I've been flying a number of .46 size warbirds and had placed a .61 inside a .40 size for "power" and did fine. I also flew my buddies Great Planes Stuka since I was the better pilot. I flew it fine but had trouble with using the flaps on landing. I purchased an already built Top Flight .60/.90 size P-47 and flew it once. Did well until the engine quit on me and I coasted in (once again using flaps) and lost airspeed and splat...dropped real hard on the runway and snapped off both gear. So, I've flown two of these larger planes but felt very uneasy during the flight and the poor "flap" results are the reason for my nervousness about taking them up again. I went from a fly anything guy to a timid guy about getting back to these bigger planes.
Pat
Pat
06-19-2004, 04:29 PM
#7
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sandy,
UT
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
Hey good to see another warbird pilot!
I love warbirds and would not fly if I could not fly them ! One important thing with flaps is not to use them when you have a dead stick ... you willdrop speed way too fast and most likely stall or fall to the gournd hard and break landing gear.. it is a basic principle .. with any plane when you dead stick you try to keep the airspeed up until you are over your runway and ready to land.
Flaps are great to land big heavy warbirds... dont deploy them when you are at cruise speed... slow the plane down a b it just above your landing speed then watch the plane as they come down.. add or detract speed as needed... with the flaps down you are actually flying the plane in for a landing.. no more floating it in like some of the 40 sized sport or funscale warbirds.. then let it settle in!
the tf P-47 is probably one of the nicest warbirds of that size to fly.. as long as it is built right and kept light.
and importantly as RC 34074 suggested.. it sure wouldnt hurt to have an experienced warbird pilot take your bird up and see how it handles.. then he can suggest to you the best way to land take off etc.. each warbird has its own peculiarites.. P-40's Me-109s Spitfires have the narrow landing gear which can make an exciting take off run if you arent prepared for it.. ayways.. hope this helps !
I love warbirds and would not fly if I could not fly them ! One important thing with flaps is not to use them when you have a dead stick ... you willdrop speed way too fast and most likely stall or fall to the gournd hard and break landing gear.. it is a basic principle .. with any plane when you dead stick you try to keep the airspeed up until you are over your runway and ready to land.
Flaps are great to land big heavy warbirds... dont deploy them when you are at cruise speed... slow the plane down a b it just above your landing speed then watch the plane as they come down.. add or detract speed as needed... with the flaps down you are actually flying the plane in for a landing.. no more floating it in like some of the 40 sized sport or funscale warbirds.. then let it settle in!
the tf P-47 is probably one of the nicest warbirds of that size to fly.. as long as it is built right and kept light.
and importantly as RC 34074 suggested.. it sure wouldnt hurt to have an experienced warbird pilot take your bird up and see how it handles.. then he can suggest to you the best way to land take off etc.. each warbird has its own peculiarites.. P-40's Me-109s Spitfires have the narrow landing gear which can make an exciting take off run if you arent prepared for it.. ayways.. hope this helps !
06-19-2004, 07:27 PM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
Exact same thing happened to me but with heli's....I had a tiny .049 Heli that I could fly like a bat outta h*ll, but when I tried to fly my .30 size, I was so worried about crashing it, my knees were shaking on every flight. All I can figure is that it was all mental??!!!
06-20-2004, 02:33 AM
#9
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
Hello Pat,
I am also a recent graduate to larger warbirds and I know the feeling exactly. After cutting my teeth on 40 sized models my first larger warbird is an ARF ESM Sea Fury of 72" span, Zenoah G26 and 11.5lbs of weight. My main problem is in the landing of these warbirds on our club's grass strip. Every landing would end in a tip up onto the nose. Some good advice and a think about what is occuring has almost aleviated the problem.
My landings suffered from not understanding what was happening in the final few seconds before touchdown. I would keep power on during final approach then, as the model crossed the threshold and neared the ground I would chop the throttle and flare. Now, as I chopped the throttle the flaps slowed the model dramatically and I would lose elevator authority due to the reduction in airflow across these control surfaces. I would pull in excessive amounts of back stick to compensate which had the effect of slowing the model more. This vicious circle would end with the model touching down with very little elevator control and, if I was lucky, would only result in a noseover.
A fellow club member, tired of watching my botched landings, then gave me some advice. (thanks Trevor) He told me to advance my throttle trim lever to a very fast idle before commencing my approach. Viola, the very next landing was a greaser, as were the following few, and I was feeling very pleased with myself. That night, I thought it over and came up with the following possible explanation.
The very high idle mean't that when I chopped the throttle with the stick the engine would maintain a reasonably high RPM and therefore, a certain amount of propwash over the elevators, these would remain responsive and thus allow a gentle flare without the usual overapplication of up elevator. The flaps allowed the model to slow at a known and predictable rate at the high idle settings and enough elevator authority remained to help counter the noseover tendency.
I am no aerodynamics expert but this experience has resulted my own theory that warbirds need power on during the descent to provide airflow over the tail surfaces and that flaps provide drag to counterbalance the thrust generated by this power and allow the aircraft to slow for landing.
As for using flaps during deadstick landings, the loss of an old Precedent Low Boy 5 taught me that this was a no-no.
To sum up, don't worry, lots of us went through the same stage as you are in now. The use of flaps and retracts will come naturally with practice. Don't give up.
I hope my ramblings have been of interest or encouragement.
Col
I am also a recent graduate to larger warbirds and I know the feeling exactly. After cutting my teeth on 40 sized models my first larger warbird is an ARF ESM Sea Fury of 72" span, Zenoah G26 and 11.5lbs of weight. My main problem is in the landing of these warbirds on our club's grass strip. Every landing would end in a tip up onto the nose. Some good advice and a think about what is occuring has almost aleviated the problem.
My landings suffered from not understanding what was happening in the final few seconds before touchdown. I would keep power on during final approach then, as the model crossed the threshold and neared the ground I would chop the throttle and flare. Now, as I chopped the throttle the flaps slowed the model dramatically and I would lose elevator authority due to the reduction in airflow across these control surfaces. I would pull in excessive amounts of back stick to compensate which had the effect of slowing the model more. This vicious circle would end with the model touching down with very little elevator control and, if I was lucky, would only result in a noseover.
A fellow club member, tired of watching my botched landings, then gave me some advice. (thanks Trevor) He told me to advance my throttle trim lever to a very fast idle before commencing my approach. Viola, the very next landing was a greaser, as were the following few, and I was feeling very pleased with myself. That night, I thought it over and came up with the following possible explanation.
The very high idle mean't that when I chopped the throttle with the stick the engine would maintain a reasonably high RPM and therefore, a certain amount of propwash over the elevators, these would remain responsive and thus allow a gentle flare without the usual overapplication of up elevator. The flaps allowed the model to slow at a known and predictable rate at the high idle settings and enough elevator authority remained to help counter the noseover tendency.
I am no aerodynamics expert but this experience has resulted my own theory that warbirds need power on during the descent to provide airflow over the tail surfaces and that flaps provide drag to counterbalance the thrust generated by this power and allow the aircraft to slow for landing.
As for using flaps during deadstick landings, the loss of an old Precedent Low Boy 5 taught me that this was a no-no.
To sum up, don't worry, lots of us went through the same stage as you are in now. The use of flaps and retracts will come naturally with practice. Don't give up.
I hope my ramblings have been of interest or encouragement.
Col
07-27-2004, 11:02 AM
#10
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Olean , NY
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
Equip it with the FMA system and gradualy cut the sensitivity down to where you control it fully while still retaining the "save your butt feature" of the FMA.
This should help you greatly.
FastMover
This should help you greatly.
FastMover
07-27-2004, 12:26 PM
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (26)
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
I'll start out with the assumption that your flyings skills are beyond the beginner stage. I to, have pondered this issue many years ago. Most, if not all R/C pilots want to fly warbirds. The usual choice for most U.S. pilots would be the P-51 Mustang. I fell into this trap and purchased a Global model ARC P-51D. The plane when finished had retracts and flaps. I powered this aircraft with an OS .61 pumper engine. When finished the plane had a wing loading of 30oz/sq ft.
The airplane flew like it weigh, very heavy. At hight speed it handled very easy but slowing it down it became sluggish. These flight behaviors all relate to wing loading. I can't honestly say it was a delight to fly but it looked so good on a flyby. I eventually sold this airplane and purchased another .60 size warbird. This time I choose a Pica 190D-9 in kit form. When I finished this kit it only had flaps installed and fixed landing gear. The wing loading on this model came in at 28oz/sq ft and its flight performance surpassed that of the Mustang. I still have this model after ten years.
Pick a model based upon flying ability. Try to keep the wing loading below 30 oz/sq ft. Pick a model with long nose and tail moments such as the FW190-d9. These three items will make your entrance into larger scale WWII aircraft more enjoyable.
The airplane flew like it weigh, very heavy. At hight speed it handled very easy but slowing it down it became sluggish. These flight behaviors all relate to wing loading. I can't honestly say it was a delight to fly but it looked so good on a flyby. I eventually sold this airplane and purchased another .60 size warbird. This time I choose a Pica 190D-9 in kit form. When I finished this kit it only had flaps installed and fixed landing gear. The wing loading on this model came in at 28oz/sq ft and its flight performance surpassed that of the Mustang. I still have this model after ten years.
Pick a model based upon flying ability. Try to keep the wing loading below 30 oz/sq ft. Pick a model with long nose and tail moments such as the FW190-d9. These three items will make your entrance into larger scale WWII aircraft more enjoyable.
07-27-2004, 02:38 PM
#12
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
BadBart,
The 60/90 TF p47 should be a great first time warbird and if you are patient, you would be able to master it and maybe move on to bigger birds. Just like Pat was saying this size of warbirds are probably the most difficult. My second warbird was a 60 size Fw190 by Royal. I was always scared to fly it!! It would snap on me every time I got sloppy. But it taugh me a lot about flying the wing which is something a lot of RC pilots don't understand.
Overpowering the airplane with bigger engines does not teach to fly a warbird.
Make it a point every time you go flying to practice slow flight (at altitude). Find out how slow can it go and how it reacts. Try with flaps and without them. Which way the wing drops? Don't be scared to practice stalls and learn to input rudder to correct instead of ailerons.
Remember that full flaps and gear down require lots of power so if you dead stick clean the airplane . It's better to belly than to crash out of control.
This will give sence of purpose to your flights and will open another dimention to RC flying.
JG
The 60/90 TF p47 should be a great first time warbird and if you are patient, you would be able to master it and maybe move on to bigger birds. Just like Pat was saying this size of warbirds are probably the most difficult. My second warbird was a 60 size Fw190 by Royal. I was always scared to fly it!! It would snap on me every time I got sloppy. But it taugh me a lot about flying the wing which is something a lot of RC pilots don't understand.
Overpowering the airplane with bigger engines does not teach to fly a warbird.
Make it a point every time you go flying to practice slow flight (at altitude). Find out how slow can it go and how it reacts. Try with flaps and without them. Which way the wing drops? Don't be scared to practice stalls and learn to input rudder to correct instead of ailerons.
Remember that full flaps and gear down require lots of power so if you dead stick clean the airplane . It's better to belly than to crash out of control.
This will give sence of purpose to your flights and will open another dimention to RC flying.
JG
07-27-2004, 03:24 PM
#13
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
I fly warbirds only for the most part. They are all 60 size or bigger and love them. Though they have more options like flaps and retacts this only adds to the look and flaps make landing a breeze to me. Not all but a lot of 40 size warbirds are not very scale which usally means they fly better. Less wing loading the usual result. But as they get bigger they tend to go more closer to scale which also adds to the look we all want. If you don't feel confident yet take it up a couple of mistakes high and fly at that level till you do. Leave the retracts down if it is a issue till you feel better. Now I say feel better only because you seem to have the skill already by what you have said so you need to get over your feel. Don't kid youself that a 60 size P-51 is going to ever feel the same as a 60 size Extra though. Just keep on flying and it will come and you will be doing the low high speed passes just your friends without a worry. Practise is the key.
07-27-2004, 03:40 PM
#14
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
ORIGINAL: FastMover
Equip it with the FMA system and gradualy cut the sensitivity down to where you control it fully while still retaining the "save your butt feature" of the FMA.
This should help you greatly.
FastMover
Equip it with the FMA system and gradualy cut the sensitivity down to where you control it fully while still retaining the "save your butt feature" of the FMA.
This should help you greatly.
FastMover
At the risk of starting another controversy don't go with the FMA. While it may help some I've seen three events where it hurt the pilot's ability to save the plane. Maybe they were setup wrong but why add to your anxiety. Pat and others are on target. Stick time and some coaching from some skilled pilots will get you to where you want to be.
Pete
07-27-2004, 06:38 PM
#15
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
I agree with Rocketman FMA is not the way to go have seen lots of issues with it. Most common is that you are always fighting it in the air. Also have seen battery packs go dead very quick because it is always trying to move the servos.
07-27-2004, 07:51 PM
#16
RE: Smaller vs Larger Size Warbirds
I feel your pain..... I've brought my Top Flite P-39 out to the field twice and chickened out both times. Well, in all fairness, the first time it was to try and tune the engine a bit more, but quit when hardware started falling out of the gear. Second time I was too busy flying to fart around with the engine, and then the rain rolled in, so back in the car it went.
I've got a bit of a fixation on it weighing 10+ lbs. Just seems awfully heavy for its size. Of course, my .40 sized F-W 190 that seemed heavy compred to the SS 40 now feels like a feather. And it does have a lot of wing to support it, plus being a trike gear should be a breeze on the ground. Just gotta buckle down and get the engine to idle, and we'll be up and running.
BTW, I bought it used, and it's flown all of twice... but very nicely according to the test pilot!
Andy
I've got a bit of a fixation on it weighing 10+ lbs. Just seems awfully heavy for its size. Of course, my .40 sized F-W 190 that seemed heavy compred to the SS 40 now feels like a feather. And it does have a lot of wing to support it, plus being a trike gear should be a breeze on the ground. Just gotta buckle down and get the engine to idle, and we'll be up and running.
BTW, I bought it used, and it's flown all of twice... but very nicely according to the test pilot!
Andy
