venture32os

My Feedback: (2)

Has anyone found retracts that will fit this plane that will hold up. the stock ones folded back at what seemed to be a very soft landing.

Lightning Fan

My Feedback: (17)

I just got my P-82 setup, and took it out in the grass to taxi around a bit. I canned the original 2" foam wheels and got 2-1/4" Great Planes treaded wheels in the wells. The damned thing WILL NOT roll. Just noses over. Then I see your post about folding up the gear .... I'm concerned about flying this the ship now. I did beef up the internal structure for the LG mounts.
How did the gear fail? What did you ultimately do to get it back in the air? Any pointers about flying? Were the throws in the instructions correct?
Appreciate any and all info - thanks in advance!!

HITNDIRT

My Feedback: (1)

I just want to let you guys know that after a few flights( which I don't recall any major complaints, and i flew from pavment) I had an outboard panel com off in flight. the screw block let go! please check those if the wing in not permantly expoxied together.
I wasn't even doing aerobatics yet. It let go in a nomal banking turn.
Just want to give a heads up. and checking them could never hurt.

venture32os

My Feedback: (2)

I folded the gear up on mine on what I thought to be asoft langing. I replaced the wire with one that BVM jets makes. It took a little working to get it in but worked much better. I now have 2 RCV 60 engines on it. I have 13x13 4 blades props. I have lengthend the gear. I was going to use 2.75 wheels but cant get them in unless I move the gear servo. I was able to make the wires about 7/8 inch longer. I think that will solve my prop clearence problem. I glued my wing together right form the start. Have had no problems with it flying as long as both engines stay running. Had 2 os50's on it one wouldnt run worth a XXXX.

Bob Paris

My Feedback: (13)

I've a Wold Model F-82 and I've had one for over 18 months now. I've had to replace the retractable landing gear twice, and had one major repair to the wing due to the main landing gear folding and ripping out of the wing. After the last landing gear collapse, I decided to just buy a new wing, but WM wanted $200.00 just for the wing with out retracts, or wing tube...so I just rebuilt the wing. These guys will not work with you at all on the price of stuff, even when they know they have weak landing gear...Grrrr. All my damage was due to that !@#$% gear folding on landing and creating havoc with my wing.

I had two Fox .50's inverted in my F-82...a bad choice of engines, for I can not seem to get the Fox's to run inverted very well. I have been using J-tec headers to keep most the exhaust system hidden. I've installed Perry Carbs with new intake assemblies, and even Perry oscillating fuel pumps, to no avail. The engines do not run together very long. Out of my 40 or so flights with the model, 80% were single engine...the model does fly well on one motor.

I also used the plastic spinners, and with the Fox motor instillation, found I was way nose heavy. I installed dual 1200 ma. batteries in each fuselage aft of the wing on the bottom of the fuse, and even needed tail lead to balance-1 1/2 oz.. This model will fly nose heavy quite well, just noses over when you taxi...ask me how I know... You have to balance the model, or it will nose over and get your props every time. You need to keep things light up front. World Models seemed to mate two WM P-51 fuselages to a longer wing and change the tail feathers to meet the F-82 look. The Fuselages are way to short Aft of the wing to be scale, for the real F-82 was much longer in this area.

I ended up so frustrated trying to get the Fox motors running inverted, that I stopped flying the model. I then decided to buy new engines that were more reliable, and decided on K & B .48's...but this would not alleviate the nose heavy problem...so now looking to install the lightest .40's I can find.

Any help here will be nice from you guys...so who has the lightest and most reliable .36 to .40 out there...that won't brake the bank...? I would like to get my F-82 back into the air with out tail weight, or dual batteries.

Believe me when the fox .50's were turning well, that model was one of the fastest models at our field, to include Quicky 500's. It is blazing fast with unlimited vertical and has one of the best presentations airborne of any model that I've ever flown.

Now to that Landing gear...I fly off of pavement, and that stock gear is not going to hold up unless you touch down soft. The model ends up being to heavy for the stock landing gear, for it seems WM just cut down stock .40/.46 P-51 landing gear for their F-82 rendition...with this model coming out much heaver then the single engine P-51's. I have given up talking to WM, and looking to replace that gear the next time it folds back or tears out on me. I did beef up landing gear block area in the wing, and under the wing tube with thin aircraft ply (no light ply for me in this area).

I also dialed in lots of flaps, much more the the 15 Deg. they say in the instructions. The model will handle 30 Deg. of flap-even more, just dial in some elevator trim...you are going to need it, for the model will pitch it's nose a bit with application of a lot of flap.

Other then all this...I still like the model. Maybe no one else has a F-82 in kit form in this size that I like so far. It is a shame, for the F-82 is a great looking model in the air, has the sweetest single engine habits you can ask for, and always stops the field when it flys.

Soft landings always,

Bobby of Maui

Lightning Fan

My Feedback: (17)

OK, so after reading all of the mail here bout gear ripping out, I went into the wing and the gear tonight an basically started ripping stuff out. The forward gar mount, which I was able to observe after cutting the balsa top sheeting away, is a joke. It is designed to fail. One piece of 3/4 sq birch and 25 oz of epoxy later, I have an installation that might work. I also cutout all of the wells and got a 3" wheel in their that protrudes somewhat. Rather have that than gear falling out all the time. I fly off grass, and my landings ... well, let's just say I should focus a litte more. I also wound new gear wires to get everything in place. I'll let you know if this works. I am usng TT 36's .... I ran them in the other day and with 10/6 props she sure pulls. She balanced in right on the money with no added weight.

Lukepiestalker

Oh ****!
I’ve just brought one of these. I thought it would make a quick and easy introduction to twin flying. For power I was thinking of installing two Thunder Tiger G.P. 42 motors; inverted. If you were starting from scratch what would you do differently? Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks Colin

SeaHawk-RCU

Hmmm, I have owned and loved the World Models Super Stunts 40 and have taught people to fly on the World Models World Star 40. One student has just graduated to the WM T33 Mentor as a first low wing model. I was considering staying with WM when going to larger scale types but after hearing of the U/C problems and especially the company's attitude I have decided to give them a miss.

Thanks for the heads up guys

Col

Bob Paris

My Feedback: (13)

I know that I was not happy with my response from WM with my F-82 problems, but they do make other truly great models. One of the problems it seems with most of their retractable landing geared models, at least on their .40 to .60 WW-II fighters, is the weak landing gear instillations. It's the same with the P-51 and the P-40 and I have first hand knowledge on these two models. Yet these models are some of the finest flying models you could buy anywhere, and I would readily recommend their P-51 as a first WW-II fighter-for it is a superb flyer, with slow landing abilities...faster then a trainer, but very manageable. I've yet to see a WW-II ARF fighter that had a good retractable landing gear instillation in the .40/.60 size. It seems that when you buy a WW-II fighter ARF the first thing you need to do is to rework the retract area...I have and then went with Robart gears with much better results. This was the same for my Lanier P-47N ARF and it is other wise a great flyer.

WM ARF WW-II fighters are very good flyers from what I've seen, and the only weak area in the design is the Retractable landing gear area.

It's still your $$, but know that I've read reports that Hanger 9's ARF P-51 .60 size, has its landing gear issues too.

Soft landings always,

Bobby of Maui

venture32os

My Feedback: (2)

I just got a hanger 9 P51 60 size. I am installing a 120 RCV engine. What were the landing gear problems you read about. I would like to fix mine before finishing it.

Bob Paris

My Feedback: (13)

What I've read (and what I would suggest is that you look it up here at RCUniverse), is that it had weak landing gear retract units. That the legs would bend easily and cause problems because of this. Also that there have been reported problems with the instillation too. You need to read up on them first and it will be in the ARF and Warbird section.

I always beef up the landing gear retract blocks in all my ARF's and build up kits that I build/put together. It seems that this is a weak area in most all kits. I use 3/8" aircraft ply, using the longest piece of ply I can fit in-between the wing ribs, and go from the bottom of the retract rail hard wood, to the top of the wing-for both hard wood rails. This usually will do the trick, its quick easy and strong. You will need to bevel the ply to fit the contour of the wing top, use epoxy to hold it together and if you can, use a little longer screws to hold in your retract unit.

I also go and install Robart heavy duty retract units (mechanical-servo operated), and use Robo struts. Talk about stiff landing gear...but do not use their scale wheels (for general flying, but for contest work), for they work ok, but will ware out. Use Dubro or other scale like wheels and you will get much longer service life out of your wheels. The Robart scale wheels are grippy and really grab the hard surface, but ware out quickly. Also if you do not pre-glue the Robart scale wheels together, you will, on a hard fast landing...or any landing that places a high side load on the wheels, cause the wheels to come apart. It has happened to me, but those wheels sure do make a lousy landing a little easier to handle.

You also spoke about going with a 1.20, and that may create more problems then you may first understand. I do not know your level of expertise in the hobby, and I though I'm not an authority on that particular 1.20, I do get all the magazines, and I've read where that engine is a real torque monster. That is a .60 size fighter, a tail dragger and unless you are a good stick, you my be in for a real expensive surprise. I've read that the .60 size version of that engine is very strong, will haul a Kyosho .40/60 F4U with authority and that model is not that much smaller then your Hanger 9 model. Severely over powering a model creates problems all their own, and excessive torque (and that 1.20 is a torque monster too-at least what I've read) may make a dream of flying a P-51 in to a nightmare. If you want speed, go with a hot 2-stroke .60...or even a .90. But you have picked out one of the most torque producing 1.20's on the market, and this type of engine works best with larger props with hight pitch...ie, climb performance with a big +...! I fly a Lanier P-47N with a Lee K & B .61 with a Perry pump and carb. I swing a wood 13 x 5 with authority, and gives me excellent performance. This is a .40/.60 class WW-II fighter ARF with over 100 flights now, and even here, I must pay attention to torque on take off and when I do aerobatics.

I pray that this helps you out...

Soft landings always,

Bobby of Maui

Lukepiestalker

Hi everyone
Alot of flying mates of mine fly ARTF warbirds and don't have any problem with them. Some of them are quite inexperienced flyers yet they can handle a Kysho Spitfire or a Emmy 109 and even a Seagull Corsair as if they'd been flying for years. I'm not too worried if I've got to beef-up on my under carriege but I am worried about my outter wing panels parting company with the rest of the air-frame during flight. So what I would like to know is; if I epoxy these on; how will I de-rig my plane so it will fit in the car? Or better still, store it in my ever increasingly crowded hanger- oops, garage.
My current hack is a World model Rambler, powered by an O.S 52 surpass. As well as looking scale ;it loops rolls, bunts, and knife-edges very easily. The P82 is my third W.M. plane ,I know it will fly well ,but I would like to avoid the same unfortunate incident that befell my W. M. extra 300S. Which was;Something fell of it in flight , it crashed and was totally destroyed. Which was a shame,because it was probably one of the best fliers I'd ever owned.

Colin

venture32os

My Feedback: (2)

I glued my wing panels together from the start. I built a pcv craddle for my plane. It holds both fuse's right side up or upside down. I then remove the whole wing from the plane. I put 25 pin female connectors in the wing. All the servos in the wing are wired to it. There is one connector for each fuse. I them used a male connector in each fuse. All the servo and ext. are wired to them. All I have to do is plug in the 2 connectors and the whole plane is ready for flight. I could draw diagram if you like the idea. The elevator stays in the plane, both fuses are held by the stand.

Lukepiestalker

So, Venture32os, you’ve basically built a jig to hold the twin fuse in position for transporting and storage. And then soldered all your servos and y leads to a multi pin connecter. The jig idea I like, but I’m not to sure about the muti pin connecter. A diagram would be appreciated.

Thanks for your advice
Colin.

SeaHawk-RCU

Thanks Bob,
My main worry is with the attitude of the company in communications with end users. If that is the way they think of the customer, where are their priorities when designing new models?

Anyway, I have decided to go with the ESM Hawker Sea Fury and a G26 Zenoah. I will be having a close look at this model's retract installation also.

Col

Lightning Fan

My Feedback: (17)

Uhhh...
I need to wiegh in again on the P82 ...
I did NOT say that the rest of the plane is first rate, and I should have. The cowlings, for example, are not cheap plastic - they and the airscoops ar great examples of fiberglass work. The fuses are beautifully done and the covering - well, I can't do as good a job.
There is no question in my mind that the outer panels MUST be glued to the center section.
I think it is a good ship - you just have to prepare yourself to rip into the retract installation.

venture32os

My Feedback: (2)

The retract repair is not to bad to do. The plane made one of the issuse of a mag. I cant remember which one. They did a reveiw on it and found the same problems. They said in the mag. what to do to repair it. I ddint have to remove any sheeting or covering. Just had to add some braces thru the retract holes themselves. It only takes about 1 hour and then wiat for the glue to dry. My plane has had 4 crashes. One on landing and 3 which taking off. Had 2 os 50's on it and one had bad high speed needle, engine would die just after leaving the ground. One engine was not enough to finish taking off. It is very hard to control at that point and it went in. I know am installing 2 rvc 60's.
Still reworking wing to fit the much larger props. And going to a 3/16 wire for the gear.

Bob Paris

My Feedback: (13)

Some of you guy's are really putting some serious power into that model, and are looking to put even more power into it ! Two RVC .60 will make that model climb at the speed of sound...maybe even faster...

I had two Fox .50's in my model for a while, and when the engines were on line and running well, that model was faster then a few Quicky 500"s and with out a doubt the fastest WW-II fighter at our field. I was going to install two K & B .48's and these little jewels are known to be even more powerful, but it still made my model nose heavy. I want to get away from the nose heavy tendency of the WM F-82.

Now I believe the article in the one magazine that did a review on the model used either .32's or .36's. And if flew ok for that review. So going down in power will work too...though I will lose some top end speed.

I want to lighten the model, and I do believe that if I can go from two 1300 ma SR batteries, down to two 600 ma packs, and remove the lead in the tail, the model will fly better, land slower and save the gear. So I am looking for light .40's but I've not decided which .40 to install, or even go to .36's.

Anybody know who has the lightest .40 on the market...that has a bit of power too...?

I'll admit the model groves like no other model I've ever flown when at high speed...but two RVC .60...WOW that will be something to see fly. Please keep us posted on that first flight.

I installed the tube and glued the wings together with epoxy. That is the only way I would do it and recommended by WM themselves, for I asked them about that directly.

I did all my beef up in the wheel wells with out any cutting of wood on the wing. It was simple, and explained it in an earlier post.

Soft landings always,

Bobby of Maui

Lukepiestalker

Bob
Check out the T. tiger G.P. 42 It’s smaller then most 40s…cheap! and is getting a good reputation for being unfussy and reliable. Or, alternatively have a look at this website, they supply a engine called a leo 37. They are U.K. based; but do export to the States.
http://www.justengines.unseen.org/
Good luck!
Colin.

SeaHawk-RCU

Having taken on board all that has been said in this thread I have decided to stick with World Models and am considering their P51 Mustang-46. Obviously I will be checking their retract installation carefully but would appreciate any feedback regarding this model.

I am contemplating fitting my RCV 58CD, any thoughts on the compatability of this model and this engine would also be appreciated very much.

Col

Edit: Just realized that this is the P82 thread. Sorry, will repost in an appropriate thread

Lightning Fan

My Feedback: (17)

Today I flew my new WM F-82. I worked over the LG quite a bit, reinforcing the structure, and rewinding the LG wire with two coils instead of the stock one. I also went up to 2.5" wheels.
This ship flies very well, but she lands very hot. I did not put in the flaps, on landing yet.
With reinforcing it looks like the LG are good, and man ... is it cool in the air!!!

venture32os

My Feedback: (2)

how did you get wheels into the wheel wells?

Lightning Fan

My Feedback: (17)

I took out almost the entire bottom part of the sheeting from the leading edge, back to the spar. I tore out the old wheel wells, and heaved 'em, and carved out the actual leading edge to almost nothing in the vicinity of the wheel. I reinforced the entire leading edge between the two fuses with a .24" carbon fiber rod, building up the whole thing with epoxy. I made new wheel wells, and covered them in fiberglass. Even with the bigger wheels, the takeoff was a little dicey on our grass field. It takes it a while to get up to airspeed, but once she breaks ground .... !!!!!!! I had to roll in a lot of exponential on the ailerons. Two flights on her today.

Lukepiestalker

Wel Chaps, I've finally flew my P82. By the time I'd rigged it up and syncrhonised both engines I was ready to give it a good kicking. Fortunately it redeemed it'self by being a good flyer, the first flight was very good and became very interesting when I selected full flaps on approach for landing. The plane blooned up in the vertical and nearly stalled, the 20 M.M. flap movement as recomenned is quite sufficient making landing very easy.(that a teach me not to read the instructions). The second and third flights were even more interesting, both landings were made with one engine. The model powered by the one remaining running T. Tiger 42 started to gradually loose airspeed. This could also be the result off putting the model in a shallow climb to gain altitude due to the fact I was low when I experienced engine out problems. Once I decided that no more altitude could be gained, I cut the engines and glided back to the strip.
This model is a extremly good fly,but it's a absolute pain in the arse to rig up, I'm gonner have to make some serious mods.

mustang51d

My Feedback: (1)

Am working on my new P-82, and am intrested in all the comments on the ship. I've flown the Twinstar by Hobbico, and really have enjoyed flying a twin! I only wonder if two 40's (I'm planning on the OS LA) will be OK for this bird?? I've thought about the OS 46FX and do know this motor will MOTORVATE!. If you guys think the 40LA is ok---fine as I already have two in stock, and would prefer not having to invest more into this bird. I did note the WM had even down-sized the engine requirement to 35 two stroke engines. I plan to try to fly without modifing the landing geat at first, but judging from what I've read, I'll be doing that soon enough!
Thanks for any input----------Mustang Bob