Pilot_Tony-RCU

My Feedback: (2)

Just got this kit and had a few questions hopefully someone can answer. First of all, if anybody has any experience building and flying this kit, would love to hear from you. Calls for a .19-.30 2 stroke engine. I'd like to put a 4 stroke in it. Any idea of what size would be appropriate? I'm also looking for any ideas on how to replicate the lozenge camo without painting. I seem to recall that maybe someone produced lozenge fabric? If not any suggestions on a good fabric covering (Solartex?) that can be painted. Thanks in advance for all replies.

Happy flying,

Tony in PA

[email protected]

top242

what ist the diedral of this plane ? it is necessary diedral in the case of using ailerons? or in this case de diedral ist 0º? Thanzs i have the ben buckler kit. i am fron spain, sorry my english ist poor . Sugestions for construction of this kit? Thanzs!

FokkerAce

I was thinking of putting my OS 26 fs in it, or splurging for one of the OS .30 wankels (round engine!)

Lozenge can be had from flygtm.com and Arizonamodels, others.....

Build wing upside down, and the top becomes flat with the bottom doing all of the taper...cheaters dihedral....and close to scale!

Ya might want to cut new ribs, as the Buckle ones are undercambered for more lift, and the real one wasn't....more of a flat bottom

Buckle kit has provision for ailerons, but you have to build them yourself (not too hard)

hope this helps.

John Sohm

My Feedback: (9)

It didn't have provisions for ailerons when I got mine quite some time back. It was originally designed for single channel. Had a lot of dihedral and the wing sat in a cradle held on with rubber bands. I found drawings of the E-V/D-VIII and added elevator control and ailerons to the plans, built the wing upside down to get the "cheater" dihedral, and added throttle to it. I covered it with WorldTex (same stuff as SolarTex) and used an OS .48 Surpass which was perfect for it when coupled with a 12-6 prop (I liked the Graupner Super Nylon series, really good pull and weighty to keep the idle low). I flew that plane for about 5 seasons before retiring it due to one too many ground loops and I got tired of repairing the struts I had made up to replace the cradle system they used. Getting the struts the correct setup was the most difficult part of it. It flies very realistically and for best turns, get used to using rudder in coordinated turns because it's pretty effective. It slows down REALLY fast when the throttle is cut so if you go deadstick, don't try to stretch the flight out very much. That big cowl in front acts like a flying billboard. You will love doing authentic maneuvers with it, all the guys I flew with then liked that plane alot. Just build it straight and true and you will have a fun plane.

nicostoffi

Your right,
the best engine is a OS 48 4-stroke.
I built 3 D VIII of this kit, but only one will fly well.Please take ailerons for the wings, it's better way to flay.

The correct struts are the one and all to fly in a good way.

FokkerAce

Nico.....are you saying: (re: Buckle D.VIII)

that the best flyer of your three D.VIII's is the one you put more scale struts on??

Did you move the firewall to install the OS 48/4s?

Did you sheet the wing?

Asking, because I have a 1/6th BB D.VIII, and a 1/4r BUSA D.VIII, and was wondering if the BB kit was worth building, or should be by-passed (sold) to make room for the BUSA one.

Like your triplane.

FA

TFF

I have not built this kit but I did build a 1/6 scale from MAN plans. I use a OS 40 FP and it is over powered, but definatly can use the nose weight. I used Sig Koverall and painted the pattern by hand. It was not to bad and it took about two days to paint due to drying time for the paint. I am looking for some lighter wheels as the Willams Brothers ones look great but are pretty heavy for such a light plane. Squirely to land when it starts to slow down on the landing roll. Fun to watch in the air.

Tom

nicostoffi

No,

there was a missunderstanding.
I had built three of the Ben Buckle D VIII.Only the last one will fly good.
I had built it all in the same way.

No wing sheet, with ailerons and all the same struts.( NOT SCALE ).

The first one, I sheet the fuselage and powered by a old OS FS 40 4-stroke [X(]. TOO MUCH WEIGHT.
The second one with an very old ( one of the first ) OS FS 60 with open valves. Flies, but not very good.
The third one with an OS 48 FS Surpass, flies very good - scalelike.

pkf3

My Feedback: (16)

John,
when you built the wing upside down to get the cheater dihedral, did you build wash out in the tips as plan calls for, or is washout necessary with the cheater dihedral?

pkf3

My Feedback: (16)

Fokker Ace,
Have you built this kit yet? When building the wing upside down to achieve the cheater dihedral, is it necessary to add washout in the tips like the plan calls for?

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

I would not build the wing upside down. If you add ailerons, you will not need much dihedral. If you go rudder only, you will need a bunch. Going with a clark Y airfoil might be a safe play, and I would put in 3 degrees of washout. Also watch the wing incidence. I would set it at zero to the datum, and have some positive incidence on the stab. At least 3 degrees. You need to neutralize all of the lift from the wing, otherwise it will climb like crazy, and could stall, spin, crash on take off. Building the wing right side up will be much easier to keep it straight.

pkf3

My Feedback: (16)

Thank you you vertical grimace. I plan on adding ailerons. I was wondering how I was going to keep the wing straight building it upside down. Guess I' ll build it right side up and keep it relatively flat/straight. Any suggestions on building the 3 degrees of washout?

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Put some scrap 1/4" wood under the trailing edge at the tip when framing up the wing. Or you could put it in when you cover it. This would only be possible with a heat shrink covering though. Not sure how you planned to cover it.

pkf3

My Feedback: (16)

Thanks again...vertical grimace ......I figured I would need to block up the trailing edge of the tips, just wasn't sure how much. I might cover it with silk. I'm thinking Solartex might be too heavy for this kit.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Take a look here, http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/...n/peelply3.php

This stuff is great. Very cheap and it comes 5' wide. Then sold by the yard. Yields very well. You can apply it with balsarite or sig Stix it. Then dope it down. It shrinks with heat, and is very easy to apply. Goes around curves great. It is lighter than Solartex. It is similar to Sig Koverall.

Here is my 1/4 scale DR1 that I just finished with it. I only spent around $20 to cover this entire plane.

pkf3

My Feedback: (16)

That is a nice. What kit is it? I have a Flair 73" DR1 waiting to be built. Yours looks awesome. I am definitely going to try Dacron. Thanks. I can use it on my Sig smith Miniplane and the other kits in waiting.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

It is the Balsa usa. I bought $35 worth, and had enough to cover a Kadet sr. and the tripe. Still have some left over. You need to cut it with sharp tools or a pizza cutter fabric cutter, as the edges can fray. Otherwise, it is great to work with.

pkf3

My Feedback: (16)

You know, I thought the BUSA tripe was a little big for my liking and I turn around a get the flair DR1 which is just a little larger. I could not pass it up, I got a great deal on it here. I have the Flair D7, a Top Flite SE5, the mini plane, and the DVIII, all waiting to be built. Trying to finish up a top Flite P-47. Wonder how the Dacron would work on that.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

The Dacron is great anytime you want a fabric. Like open frame construction. I prefer to fiberglass and paint all of my WW2 heavy metal birds. I used polycrylic, 3/4" oz cloth and latex house paint on this old Pica 190 kit. I am finding the airbrush is the key to really pushing these models over the top.

My current build is a Ziroli Stuka. I do not have any WW1 projects in the near future. My list: 1/5th TA 152, 1/5th HE 100D, 1/5th Holman FW190 D9.

pkf3

My Feedback: (16)

Vertical...I want to keep the P-47 light. May just cover it with film. I had a few WW2 kits and a few ARFS. Got rid of them all and started the WW1 collection. For YEARS I did WW2 only. Then I did a couple of WW1 planes here and there. I was in the middle of building the P-47 when a friend offered me a WW1 kit. (I've always like biplanes) It was on after that. I've done mostly ARFS, and decided to finally take the plunge on my first rc kit build (P-47). I've done plenty of stick and tissue kits. Now I want to build. It's more rewarding. I've have always liked the WW1 subjects and since I never see any at the local field that is the direction I decided to go. Your 190 looks good. I've been thinking of airbrushing the P-47 when it's done. Send pic when you get the HE 100 done.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Fiberglassing is not (does not have to be) heavier than coverings. It looks much better as well, and lasts much longer. No wrinkles in the sun etc. But if that is the direction you want to go, that is cool. Just thought I would mention it. I find glassing easier than covering. So it is just a preferred method for me.

pkf3

My Feedback: (16)

I have thought of fiberglassing, but maybe after my skills are honed a little more.

rowarrior

Hi pkf3,

i was wondering if you had flown your Ben Buckle Fokker DVIII yet. Few months ago, I purchased one, without plans, but almost all put together. I didnt even know the manufacturer of the kit. Only recently I learned it is a Ben Buckle kit.

Anyhow, it took me a while to search and obtain the proper info, but I just flew my Fokker DVIII and it flew really nice, so i thought i would share the info that proved to work in my case, i hope it helps you. Here is a link to the maiden flight video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1bgcgB8f74


Allow me to share the info I obtained that is deemed to be ideal regarding INCIDENCE:

0 deg. at the wing compared with the fuselage datum
0 deg. at the axle wing compared to the datum
+2 deg. at the horizontal stabilizer compared to the datum
-2 deg. engine thrust compared to datum
+2 deg. right thrust

my plane ended up and flew at:

+1 deg. at the wing, with wash out with the tips at 0 deg.
+2 deg. at the axle wing
+1 deg. at the horizontal stabilizer
-2 deg. down thrust
+2 deg. right thrust

Having said that, the incidences I ended up with were very good for me and comfortable to fly with,

Now, some more info:

I used a Rossi 45 Nitro engine, way more power than what is recommended, but since my plane ended up with a 7.1 lb weight (no fuel) it was very heavy.

At this point, i worried about the wing loading, given that the Fokker DVIII does not have struts that go from the fuse all the way to the wing tips i feared the wings would collapse in flight or something...

After I did the math, I calculated a 31 oz/sq ft wing loading... I considered the axle wing as a flying surface, so I added its surface to the wing's surface when I performed the calculation. (wing and axle wing area divided by the total weight of the plane) . Mine were 545 sq inches (3.78 sq ft) and 7.2 lbs respectively.

Now, 31 oz/sq ft seems really high, and i think it is for an RC model but the real Fokker DVIII had also a considerable higher wing loading than its brother, the DVII, . I know war birds usually have a 20 to 25 oz/sq ft loading. However, there was no way i could shave weight off my plane, so with lots of fear, I flew it that way.

I have to say, my high wing loading was evident: the Fokker DVIII is not much of a glider, hence i did not even try to put it thru rolls or loops and I always kept my angle of attack low(as you can see on the video). I used the mixer AIL-RUD to compensate for adverse yaw at the very real possibility of tip stalling. Although I never felt it would tip stall, I felt my plane would be more than willing to. For what I read, most Fokker DVIII have this tendency. So be CAREFUL! an online calculator predicted that my plane would stall at 45 km/h, i dont know if its true, but i kept that info in my head the entire flight.


The plane balanced perfectly right at 1/3 of the Mean Aerodynamic Chord (or MAC), or in simple terms, right behind where the 2 frontal struts at each side meet the wing. It would be hard to get this bird nose heavy, but really easy to have it tail heavy. I had to use a lot (yes, lots) of ballast weight right at the nose, glued to the engine mount.

I think this info should be helpful to most Fokker DVIII planes out there. I will attempt pushing my plane more in future flights, but I hope this info comes handy to someone in the future.