B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
04-18-2006, 04:10 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
Perhaps Neil, or a benefactor, could put up a poll & request thread with a bunch of planes to see whats most popular/requested. Maybe a Pick 3 of the bunch to get a generally wanted plane or 2.
04-18-2006, 08:04 PM
#27
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
I would guess that someone could install retracts, but the model is not set up for them.
As you can see, the nacelles slide into the wing. The main gear is bolted to two pieces of plywood that is bolted to the reinforced main spar. Thinking about it, I would say possible, but of course some rework of the nacelles and front wing structure would be necessary. As the nacelles are removable and the overlap part is to the bottom and the wheel did not really retract fully into the wing, it might be possible.
Twinman
As you can see, the nacelles slide into the wing. The main gear is bolted to two pieces of plywood that is bolted to the reinforced main spar. Thinking about it, I would say possible, but of course some rework of the nacelles and front wing structure would be necessary. As the nacelles are removable and the overlap part is to the bottom and the wheel did not really retract fully into the wing, it might be possible.
Twinman
04-18-2006, 09:23 PM
#28
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Galesburg, IL
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
Mite it be an A-26 just a guess.[sm=bananahead.gif] Twinman I didn't have a problem with the nacelles it was with the cowels. The nacelles are just fine just the square looking jar bottom made into a cowel. Kindof reminded me of the photo of the cockpit of the original photo of this plane. Not very scale friendly. Guess a person could order a set of fiberglass one and add them to it
04-18-2006, 09:45 PM
#29
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
nchrome:
Not the A-26 or any variant thereof. This particular airchine was flown in official US combat only in Korea.
Bill.
Not the A-26 or any variant thereof. This particular airchine was flown in official US combat only in Korea.
Bill.
04-18-2006, 11:43 PM
#33
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mary Esther, Florida, FL
Posts: 20,205
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
13 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
Mug:
There was a squadron of Marine F7Fs stationed near Peking China in 1946 and 1947, Some "Unofficial" sorties were flown for Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalists.
That's where I first saw the Tigercat. Loved the plane ever since.
And your guess is correct, for whatever reason.
Bill.
There was a squadron of Marine F7Fs stationed near Peking China in 1946 and 1947, Some "Unofficial" sorties were flown for Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalists.
That's where I first saw the Tigercat. Loved the plane ever since.
And your guess is correct, for whatever reason.
Bill.
04-28-2006, 10:35 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tucson,
AZ
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
I'll bet we start seeing a bunch of these around. If I wasn't already building a DS B17, I might be tempted to get one of these. Quick, easy way into a 4 engine bird, can't beat the price either.
05-23-2006, 12:31 AM
#35
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
eam.net B-17 Less expensive...looks better and can fit glow engines if you want but is designed for electric. Also is designed for retracts.
http://www.eam.net/EAMRC/bomber17/bomber17.htm
It is slightly smaller at 70" wingspan compared to 78" of the cedarhobbies one. I like the cedarhobbies variant fine, except the cowls are screwed up(amoung other things). However, the price is amost double that of the eam.net one which has a fiberglass fuse.
Here is build thread for eam.net's ARF B-17
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323519
http://www.eam.net/EAMRC/bomber17/bomber17.htm
It is slightly smaller at 70" wingspan compared to 78" of the cedarhobbies one. I like the cedarhobbies variant fine, except the cowls are screwed up(amoung other things). However, the price is amost double that of the eam.net one which has a fiberglass fuse.
Here is build thread for eam.net's ARF B-17
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323519
05-23-2006, 03:08 PM
#37
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
kahloq
Interesting kit. That one I did not know about,,,,,,,,but it seems to be a kit not an arf. Let me play,,NOT ARGUE, the other side of the fence. The post below on putting electric on the VQ P-38, and they are not the first, says it added almost $1200 to the cost of the plane. The video from Mookie 1 really got me thinking. It did take off as fast as my VQ with ST 90's and without the white knuckels of engine out..Now that is worth something big to think about. Now, I am NOT,,(no matter what the above bunch say), and expert on electrics and they ARE in my opinion coming. I would think that this four engine bomber would not use such large motors as the P-38, and so individually it would be less per motor, but more in batteries and controllers. I looked at the EAM kit you reference and I would question putting glow on that without major redesign and reinforcement. You would have to redesign the nacelles completely and where would you put the fuel tanks? Yes, you can put one tank and four engines. I did it on the early Cedar Hobbies prototype http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_24...tm.htm#2454095
I also told Cedar. DO NOT DO THIS. It cost over $200 extra for pumps. If you look closely at that post, you will see the same type of slide on cowls as the eam. These also were abandoned due to poor appearance and fit problems. I AM NOT taking issue with the EAM, as I have not seen it. Perhaps they solved the overhang of the cowling on the wing and fit problems. More power to them. The new design over at Cedar does now allow access to the batteries on the top hatch, if someone wanted..(And MUCH more talented than me) to do this in electric. I would GUESS that there is no redesign to go electric. If someone, (NOT ME) is really into scale..pull off the covering and detail to your hearts content, but save the 100 hours getting to that point.
MY TWO CENTS.
Twinman
PS It is alive and flying.. Write up to be posted on RCwarbirds.com soon.
Interesting kit. That one I did not know about,,,,,,,,but it seems to be a kit not an arf. Let me play,,NOT ARGUE, the other side of the fence. The post below on putting electric on the VQ P-38, and they are not the first, says it added almost $1200 to the cost of the plane. The video from Mookie 1 really got me thinking. It did take off as fast as my VQ with ST 90's and without the white knuckels of engine out..Now that is worth something big to think about. Now, I am NOT,,(no matter what the above bunch say), and expert on electrics and they ARE in my opinion coming. I would think that this four engine bomber would not use such large motors as the P-38, and so individually it would be less per motor, but more in batteries and controllers. I looked at the EAM kit you reference and I would question putting glow on that without major redesign and reinforcement. You would have to redesign the nacelles completely and where would you put the fuel tanks? Yes, you can put one tank and four engines. I did it on the early Cedar Hobbies prototype http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_24...tm.htm#2454095
I also told Cedar. DO NOT DO THIS. It cost over $200 extra for pumps. If you look closely at that post, you will see the same type of slide on cowls as the eam. These also were abandoned due to poor appearance and fit problems. I AM NOT taking issue with the EAM, as I have not seen it. Perhaps they solved the overhang of the cowling on the wing and fit problems. More power to them. The new design over at Cedar does now allow access to the batteries on the top hatch, if someone wanted..(And MUCH more talented than me) to do this in electric. I would GUESS that there is no redesign to go electric. If someone, (NOT ME) is really into scale..pull off the covering and detail to your hearts content, but save the 100 hours getting to that point.
MY TWO CENTS.
Twinman
PS It is alive and flying.. Write up to be posted on RCwarbirds.com soon.
05-24-2006, 10:05 AM
#41
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
nine o nine
Good point. I biult it as it comes and thank you for the information about the 3 degrees. The model does not seem to have much if any dihedral, other than the upward sweep of the underside of the wing to the tip. Maybe that is what our resident expert Terror Dactyl is talking about..I am only poor old country boy and don't figgure that high tech talk.
Seriously, it is FAR more stable than I ever expected for never flying a scale...or semi-scale (To not offend the scale purists out there) four engine plane...the five engine Kadett does not count.
Landed like a trainer to the point I will have to go back and add exponential to the elevator.
To add dihedral??? Not sure if you could bend the two aluminum tubes installed in the fuslage or not. They are approximately 3/4" diameter.
Off on business trip to support the hobby.
Twinman
Good point. I biult it as it comes and thank you for the information about the 3 degrees. The model does not seem to have much if any dihedral, other than the upward sweep of the underside of the wing to the tip. Maybe that is what our resident expert Terror Dactyl is talking about..I am only poor old country boy and don't figgure that high tech talk.
Seriously, it is FAR more stable than I ever expected for never flying a scale...or semi-scale (To not offend the scale purists out there) four engine plane...the five engine Kadett does not count.
Landed like a trainer to the point I will have to go back and add exponential to the elevator.
To add dihedral??? Not sure if you could bend the two aluminum tubes installed in the fuslage or not. They are approximately 3/4" diameter.
Off on business trip to support the hobby.
Twinman
05-24-2006, 03:07 PM
#42
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Jurrasic Park, TX,
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
You have been away from work too long (not) or probably all that electrifying stuff you were around this past weekend got you a little fried (not) it must be the older-timers just like me.
I will repeat it to help clear things up. The leading edge being swept back gives the aerodynamic effect of some dihedral.
I do not know the engineering behind it, but I would believe that some one could give us chapter and verse.
I would believe the effect is small but every little bit helps
I will repeat it to help clear things up. The leading edge being swept back gives the aerodynamic effect of some dihedral.
I do not know the engineering behind it, but I would believe that some one could give us chapter and verse.
I would believe the effect is small but every little bit helps
05-28-2006, 02:02 PM
#43
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
ORIGINAL: twinman
kahloq
Interesting kit. That one I did not know about,,,,,,,,but it seems to be a kit not an arf. Let me play,,NOT ARGUE, the other side of the fence. The post below on putting electric on the VQ P-38, and they are not the first, says it added almost $1200 to the cost of the plane. The video from Mookie 1 really got me thinking. It did take off as fast as my VQ with ST 90's and without the white knuckels of engine out..Now that is worth something big to think about. Now, I am NOT,,(no matter what the above bunch say), and expert on electrics and they ARE in my opinion coming. I would think that this four engine bomber would not use such large motors as the P-38, and so individually it would be less per motor, but more in batteries and controllers. I looked at the EAM kit you reference and I would question putting glow on that without major redesign and reinforcement. You would have to redesign the nacelles completely and where would you put the fuel tanks? Yes, you can put one tank and four engines. I did it on the early Cedar Hobbies prototype http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_24...tm.htm#2454095
I also told Cedar. DO NOT DO THIS. It cost over $200 extra for pumps. If you look closely at that post, you will see the same type of slide on cowls as the eam. These also were abandoned due to poor appearance and fit problems. I AM NOT taking issue with the EAM, as I have not seen it. Perhaps they solved the overhang of the cowling on the wing and fit problems. More power to them. The new design over at Cedar does now allow access to the batteries on the top hatch, if someone wanted..(And MUCH more talented than me) to do this in electric. I would GUESS that there is no redesign to go electric. If someone, (NOT ME) is really into scale..pull off the covering and detail to your hearts content, but save the 100 hours getting to that point.
MY TWO CENTS.
Twinman
PS It is alive and flying.. Write up to be posted on RCwarbirds.com soon.
kahloq
Interesting kit. That one I did not know about,,,,,,,,but it seems to be a kit not an arf. Let me play,,NOT ARGUE, the other side of the fence. The post below on putting electric on the VQ P-38, and they are not the first, says it added almost $1200 to the cost of the plane. The video from Mookie 1 really got me thinking. It did take off as fast as my VQ with ST 90's and without the white knuckels of engine out..Now that is worth something big to think about. Now, I am NOT,,(no matter what the above bunch say), and expert on electrics and they ARE in my opinion coming. I would think that this four engine bomber would not use such large motors as the P-38, and so individually it would be less per motor, but more in batteries and controllers. I looked at the EAM kit you reference and I would question putting glow on that without major redesign and reinforcement. You would have to redesign the nacelles completely and where would you put the fuel tanks? Yes, you can put one tank and four engines. I did it on the early Cedar Hobbies prototype http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_24...tm.htm#2454095
I also told Cedar. DO NOT DO THIS. It cost over $200 extra for pumps. If you look closely at that post, you will see the same type of slide on cowls as the eam. These also were abandoned due to poor appearance and fit problems. I AM NOT taking issue with the EAM, as I have not seen it. Perhaps they solved the overhang of the cowling on the wing and fit problems. More power to them. The new design over at Cedar does now allow access to the batteries on the top hatch, if someone wanted..(And MUCH more talented than me) to do this in electric. I would GUESS that there is no redesign to go electric. If someone, (NOT ME) is really into scale..pull off the covering and detail to your hearts content, but save the 100 hours getting to that point.
MY TWO CENTS.
Twinman
PS It is alive and flying.. Write up to be posted on RCwarbirds.com soon.
Using Park 450 outrunners would be extreme overkill to the nth degree but would only cost an addtional $5 per motor and no change in esc cost. If you really wanted to get unlimited power(no where close to scale), using Park 480's ups the cost from the Park 400's by $10 per motor and also $10 per esc as the 480's require a 40 amp esc.
The VQ would need equivalent .40 sized electric motors....aka Power 46 elfite at 109 each - total of $218 plus 2 x 60 amp esc's at $139 each for $278....total now is $496. Add in the batteries again...this time lets say we use 4 x 2100's for total of $300(im using 2100's as comparison as they are easily found at LHS and can be parrelled together or put in series easily. Your still at $800, which is $400 less then the $1200. Yeah, using nitro on the VQ P-38 is cheaper, but a lot heavier. You could use Power 60's for a $20 increase per motor and would require 80 amp esc's for another $20 per esc. This adds $80 total for a grand total of $880.
05-29-2006, 05:52 AM
#44
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
Thank you for the information. You are still above my poor head on all this electric jargon, but let's all face it, they are coming and you left out one big thing that applies to mulit's everywhere. RELIABILITY.
Thanks for the education.
Twinman
Thanks for the education.
Twinman
05-29-2006, 02:02 PM
#45
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
I agree reliability is the biggest factor with multi's. If one engine goes out, your ok, a torque roll will probably not be an issue. If you lose both motors on one side, your screwed. However, electric motors are far more reliable then nitro engines which can flame out or stall for whatever reason. Also, you wire up electric motors in multi's in pairs(one from each side of plane). So, if you lose one engine, only one engine on opposite side might be effected...if its a speed control problem.
I like nitro planes and love the big warbirds myself. I would like to get a B-17 at some point, just depends on wallet. I have about 20 planes right now, and 15 are warbirds(most of those are electric, but do have a few nitro Corsairs). I think the sound is really impressive on a multi engine nitro plane, so I'd love to go that route some time down the road. We'll see. I still would like to have the eam.net B-17 since its easier to transport, but a larger gas version would be great too. If Cedarhobbies can fix the freadful looking cowls, I might consider it. Also, the tail gunner bubble area looks pretty bad. If there are new photos with changes, I'd love to see them as it might help sway me. A Cheyenne tail gun would actually look a lot better, btw.
I like nitro planes and love the big warbirds myself. I would like to get a B-17 at some point, just depends on wallet. I have about 20 planes right now, and 15 are warbirds(most of those are electric, but do have a few nitro Corsairs). I think the sound is really impressive on a multi engine nitro plane, so I'd love to go that route some time down the road. We'll see. I still would like to have the eam.net B-17 since its easier to transport, but a larger gas version would be great too. If Cedarhobbies can fix the freadful looking cowls, I might consider it. Also, the tail gunner bubble area looks pretty bad. If there are new photos with changes, I'd love to see them as it might help sway me. A Cheyenne tail gun would actually look a lot better, btw.
05-29-2006, 06:35 PM
#46
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
The rear machine gun canopy is now clear and the rear machine gun cover, which was clear is now, as I should be, covered.
Keep us posted..The cross connection on the motors does sound like the ticket. For cowel redesign as you wish, I could suggest you put your suggestions to Cedar's website.
Later,,uh..got to go sync some engines,,Wonder if those guys who used to make sound effects can make a four ENGINE sound for electric..then I will have to look at this.
Twinman
PS kahloq...the comment on sync'n engines...you would not understand..Tee Hee
Keep us posted..The cross connection on the motors does sound like the ticket. For cowel redesign as you wish, I could suggest you put your suggestions to Cedar's website.
Later,,uh..got to go sync some engines,,Wonder if those guys who used to make sound effects can make a four ENGINE sound for electric..then I will have to look at this.
Twinman
PS kahloq...the comment on sync'n engines...you would not understand..Tee Hee
05-29-2006, 06:38 PM
#47
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
ORIGINAL: twinman
The rear machine gun canopy is now clear and the rear machine gun cover, which was clear is now, as I should be, covered.
Keep us posted..The cross connection on the motors does sound like the ticket. For cowel redesign as you wish, I could suggest you put your suggestions to Cedar's website.
Later,,uh..got to go sync some engines,,Wonder if those guys who used to make sound effects can make a four ENGINE sound for electric..then I will have to look at this.
Twinman
PS kahloq...the comment on sync'n engines...you would not understand..Tee Hee
The rear machine gun canopy is now clear and the rear machine gun cover, which was clear is now, as I should be, covered.
Keep us posted..The cross connection on the motors does sound like the ticket. For cowel redesign as you wish, I could suggest you put your suggestions to Cedar's website.
Later,,uh..got to go sync some engines,,Wonder if those guys who used to make sound effects can make a four ENGINE sound for electric..then I will have to look at this.
Twinman
PS kahloq...the comment on sync'n engines...you would not understand..Tee Hee
And I did read in a recent rc mag about a sound system that replicates airplane engine sounds. They had it in a .90 size Corsair converted to electric.
05-31-2006, 03:05 PM
#48
My Feedback: (8)
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
This is still one of the worst examples of a B-17 that I have ever seen. How can the manufacturer put their plane next to a photo of the real thing and not see that for themselves.
My prediction......... only a few of these will sell due to it's ugliness!
My prediction......... only a few of these will sell due to it's ugliness!
06-01-2006, 06:40 PM
#49
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Katy,
TX
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
One great thing about America..eveyone can have an opinion. If I might suggest, this thing could save 100 plus hours of build time to get to the basic frame of a B-17 for $425. Then skilled modelers on detail work, which it sounds like you are, could make it anything you wish. Uh..I do not place myself in the skilled scale class. I like to fly and this thing gets you into the air faster with a four engine..OK stand off scale, if you wish, bomber, than I would or could ever do a four engine plane.
Twinman
Twinman
06-01-2006, 11:33 PM
#50
RE: B-17 Flying Fortress ARF Question
ORIGINAL: twinman
One great thing about America..eveyone can have an opinion. If I might suggest, this thing could save 100 plus hours of build time to get to the basic frame of a B-17 for $425. Then skilled modelers on detail work, which it sounds like you are, could make it anything you wish. Uh..I do not place myself in the skilled scale class. I like to fly and this thing gets you into the air faster with a four engine..OK stand off scale, if you wish, bomber, than I would or could ever do a four engine plane.
Twinman
One great thing about America..eveyone can have an opinion. If I might suggest, this thing could save 100 plus hours of build time to get to the basic frame of a B-17 for $425. Then skilled modelers on detail work, which it sounds like you are, could make it anything you wish. Uh..I do not place myself in the skilled scale class. I like to fly and this thing gets you into the air faster with a four engine..OK stand off scale, if you wish, bomber, than I would or could ever do a four engine plane.
Twinman
( http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323519 )
it wouldn't be too much of a problem.
Myself and it seems many others would rather spend the extra 100 hours if needed for a plane that looks good then for one that looks bad. I'd be embarrassed to show up at the field with this Cedar plane as it appears now. I Don't think spending $500 for a plane and having it look, well, not so good is well spent money.
It would take a good deal of that 100 hours saved to actually retrofit a set of 4 cowls that actually looked close to scale. The amount of work required to skillfully fix the issues with this plane would eat up that 100 hours easily. Now, its sure a great plane for someone that doesn't much care for looks and just wants a 4 engine plane.
Hopefully, Cedarhobbies can fix the more glaring problems and then they'd have a winner on their hands.