Royal Midi Corsair
09-20-2009, 05:46 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fresno,
CA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Midi Corsair
Ok, been preparing for a while now. Getting ready to begin building bird #1, a Royal Midi F4U-1D (which appears to be more like a F2G in the nose). Anyone have any suggestions, tips or recommendations for this particular kit?? Like a conversion to retracts, flaps, correcting flying quirks or problems.
09-20-2009, 06:31 PM
#2
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
09-20-2009, 10:19 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fresno,
CA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
Thanks Rwright142, I was aware of that thread. Very helpfull. And I will proabably try to include some of the items from that thread, like the tailwheel, only scaled down. The midi kit is a 40 size kit and I was more interested in specific corrections and converstions for it.
09-20-2009, 11:07 PM
#4
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
I built the 40 Spitfire in highschool and I thought it was a pretty good kit; the plane still survives. If it is like the spit with solid flight controls, I would lighten or build up some. My buddy built the Jemco Corsair in HS. As much as I wanted flaps on the spit it would have been a pain; flaps on a Corsair that small would be too. I would just go with retracts. Who has 40 size retracts for it now?
09-21-2009, 07:04 AM
#5
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
ORIGINAL: ZX1Ninja
Thanks Rwright142, I was aware of that thread. Very helpfull. And I will proabably try to include some of the items from that thread, like the tailwheel, only scaled down. The midi kit is a 40 size kit and I was more interested in specific corrections and converstions for it.
Thanks Rwright142, I was aware of that thread. Very helpfull. And I will proabably try to include some of the items from that thread, like the tailwheel, only scaled down. The midi kit is a 40 size kit and I was more interested in specific corrections and converstions for it.
09-24-2009, 09:50 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fresno,
CA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
ORIGINAL: rwright142
I didn't realize the midi was a 40 size so thanks for the clarification. Looking forward to see your build. Good luck!
ORIGINAL: ZX1Ninja
Thanks Rwright142, I was aware of that thread. Very helpfull. And I will proabably try to include some of the items from that thread, like the tailwheel, only scaled down. The midi kit is a 40 size kit and I was more interested in specific corrections and converstions for it.
Thanks Rwright142, I was aware of that thread. Very helpfull. And I will proabably try to include some of the items from that thread, like the tailwheel, only scaled down. The midi kit is a 40 size kit and I was more interested in specific corrections and converstions for it.
09-24-2009, 09:53 PM
#7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fresno,
CA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
ORIGINAL: TFF
I built the 40 Spitfire in highschool and I thought it was a pretty good kit; the plane still survives. If it is like the spit with solid flight controls, I would lighten or build up some. My buddy built the Jemco Corsair in HS. As much as I wanted flaps on the spit it would have been a pain; flaps on a Corsair that small would be too. I would just go with retracts. Who has 40 size retracts for it now?
I built the 40 Spitfire in highschool and I thought it was a pretty good kit; the plane still survives. If it is like the spit with solid flight controls, I would lighten or build up some. My buddy built the Jemco Corsair in HS. As much as I wanted flaps on the spit it would have been a pain; flaps on a Corsair that small would be too. I would just go with retracts. Who has 40 size retracts for it now?
I don't know how close or different they are. I do know the tail section is solid, so I will consider ligtning or building up those. As for flaps, I think I will wait to see how the wing builds up. Maybe not. I am still looking for retracts, not to hard to find except I need rotating, that's when it apperas to get difficult. But I am confident I will find a set. Perhaps the LADO's, ... Naaa get those for the 60 size :-)
10-08-2009, 08:38 PM
#8
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fresno,
CA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
Started the build. Found that the eng mounts (wood beams built into the model) are 28mm apart and it is hard to find a modern eng to fit. So I will need to decide what I am going to use and then cut off the beams and duild a new firewal for the new engine mount. on a side note. I did find a set of rotating retracts, I just have to decide if it's worth the $50 the person who has them is asking for them. Oh well, the build goes on.
10-24-2009, 03:42 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fresno,
CA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
Ok, found the kit does not provide or suggest how/when to mount the servos. Slightly unclear about how to install the rudder and fillers around the rudder. Good thing I figured it out before I got to far and would have had to disasemble the whole rear section.
Since the kit did not originally have provision for retracts, I found a set and as soon as I get the wing started I will see what it will take to modify it for the retracts. Because of that< I am cutting out plywood copies o the outer wing spars and center section ribs.
As soon as I figure out how, I will post photos.
Since the kit did not originally have provision for retracts, I found a set and as soon as I get the wing started I will see what it will take to modify it for the retracts. Because of that< I am cutting out plywood copies o the outer wing spars and center section ribs.
As soon as I figure out how, I will post photos.
Got the fuse sheeted, most of it. Still not sure if I will use nitro or electirc.
12-29-2009, 10:59 PM
#13
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fresno,
CA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
The fuse is no farther along. Having trouble deciding if I want to go nitro or electric. If I go Nitro, I need to find a suitable fuel tank, which is proving to be more difficult than thought because of space limitations. Electric might be easier, but I have a lot to buy if I go that direction.
The wing is about one third, but I stopped because I thought I had a twist. I need to locate a board flat enough to verify the wing alignment before I go further. Other than that, It's just peachy. :-)
The wing is about one third, but I stopped because I thought I had a twist. I need to locate a board flat enough to verify the wing alignment before I go further. Other than that, It's just peachy. :-)
12-30-2009, 02:35 AM
#15
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fresno,
CA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
I was going to use a .46 because I have everything I need but the engine and only wanted to have a 10 oz tank. The plane is advertised for a .19 to .40. But then the 28mm space between the eng mounting beams will not allow a modern engine to mount and I will have to modify the firewall no mater what I do.
The problem I am running into with the fuel tanks is that all the tanks I have found so far are just a little bit to long and/or to tall. Width would be easier to manage because I have some room there. I have found a tank that would work except foran extension protruding at the bottom and forward of the opening for the tubing.
Originally I was going to build the wing with retracts which was why I made copies the wing parts. But I have been unable to find rotating retracts for a 40 size plane for a reasonable price. The ones I have found were upwards of 75.00 plus and I am not that flush. So I am building the stock wing with fixed (yeach) gear.
As far as the power, I was going to wait until I had the wing done and then consider my options for power. IfI did go nitro, I may consider cutting off the protrusion on the fuel tank and then reseal the tank. But I am not very excited about it. Electric is sounding better, but more costly initially since I would need to buy almost everything I would need (motor, speed control, batteries, chargers, cell balancers etc.). The engine / motor cost is about the same. The other stuff is where the cost would be. But then except for the batteries, it would be a one-time expense,in theory anyway.
Those are the only two power options I know of right now, but I am willing to entertain any suggestions people may throw my way though.
02-07-2010, 10:58 PM
#16
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fresno,
CA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
Been a while, thought you would like to see some work done.
Still havent decided on the power, I will probably end up doing nitro.But I need to decide soon.
Still havent decided on the power, I will probably end up doing nitro.But I need to decide soon.
06-09-2010, 04:45 AM
#19
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Copperas Cove, Tx.
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
I think you need to rethink the .46 idea. Especially since the engine you show in your pic looks like a K&B .45 Sportster. Nice engines but those are one of the biggest, weightiest .45s I've ever seen. The first time I saw one I thought I was looking at a .60.
These older kits were designed to fly with older less powerful engines of sorts. That doesn't mean you can't use a modern engine, but you should keep it in perspective. The run of the mill .19-.40s of that day were lighter weight and had smaller crankcases. They also required less fuel and were less powerful than typical engines of today. So now you want to stuff an over size engine, and an oversize tank in a scale plane that wasn't designed for or around it. Not a good recipe in my opinion. Not that it can't be done but more often than not, the result is disappointing and hard to fly if not disastrous.
My recommendation would be to find a modern smaller case motor in the .25-.36 range. Something like a Magnum .28, Super Tigre .34, Thunder Tiger .36 (my favorite), OS .25FX, OS .32SX or even the new OS .35AX if you have the coin. These engines will have more than enough power to fly the plane. They are reliable and run nice. Will fit without too much modification and can use a 6-8oz tank that will fit the airframe.
Another option you might look into is the bushing .40 size engines like an OS LA.40-.46, Thunder Tiger .42 and such. They have smaller crankcases than Ball bearing engines, are light weight so you wont need tail weight, are the right power output for this plane and get good flight time out of a 6-8 oz fuel tank. They are also affordable!
I know for a fact that the Thunder Tiger .36 has more power than an older K&B ringed .40 which would have been a hot rod in this plane.
Mike
These older kits were designed to fly with older less powerful engines of sorts. That doesn't mean you can't use a modern engine, but you should keep it in perspective. The run of the mill .19-.40s of that day were lighter weight and had smaller crankcases. They also required less fuel and were less powerful than typical engines of today. So now you want to stuff an over size engine, and an oversize tank in a scale plane that wasn't designed for or around it. Not a good recipe in my opinion. Not that it can't be done but more often than not, the result is disappointing and hard to fly if not disastrous.
My recommendation would be to find a modern smaller case motor in the .25-.36 range. Something like a Magnum .28, Super Tigre .34, Thunder Tiger .36 (my favorite), OS .25FX, OS .32SX or even the new OS .35AX if you have the coin. These engines will have more than enough power to fly the plane. They are reliable and run nice. Will fit without too much modification and can use a 6-8oz tank that will fit the airframe.
Another option you might look into is the bushing .40 size engines like an OS LA.40-.46, Thunder Tiger .42 and such. They have smaller crankcases than Ball bearing engines, are light weight so you wont need tail weight, are the right power output for this plane and get good flight time out of a 6-8 oz fuel tank. They are also affordable!
I know for a fact that the Thunder Tiger .36 has more power than an older K&B ringed .40 which would have been a hot rod in this plane.
Mike
06-09-2010, 02:20 PM
#21
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
ORIGINAL: optech
I think you need to rethink the .46 idea. Especially since the engine you show in your pic looks like a K&B .45 Sportster. Nice engines but those are one of the biggest, weightiest .45s I've ever seen. The first time I saw one I thought I was looking at a .60.
These older kits were designed to fly with older less powerful engines of sorts. That doesn't mean you can't use a modern engine, but you should keep it in perspective. The run of the mill .19-.40s of that day were lighter weight and had smaller crankcases. They also required less fuel and were less powerful than typical engines of today. So now you want to stuff an over size engine, and an oversize tank in a scale plane that wasn't designed for or around it. Not a good recipe in my opinion. Not that it can't be done but more often than not, the result is disappointing and hard to fly if not disastrous.
My recommendation would be to find a modern smaller case motor in the .25-.36 range. Something like a Magnum .28, Super Tigre .34, Thunder Tiger .36 (my favorite), OS .25FX, OS .32SX or even the new OS .35AX if you have the coin. These engines will have more than enough power to fly the plane. They are reliable and run nice. Will fit without too much modification and can use a 6-8oz tank that will fit the airframe.
Another option you might look into is the bushing .40 size engines like an OS LA.40-.46, Thunder Tiger .42 and such. They have smaller crankcases than Ball bearing engines, are light weight so you wont need tail weight, are the right power output for this plane and get good flight time out of a 6-8 oz fuel tank. They are also affordable!
I know for a fact that the Thunder Tiger .36 has more power than an older K&B ringed .40 which would have been a hot rod in this plane.
Mike
I think you need to rethink the .46 idea. Especially since the engine you show in your pic looks like a K&B .45 Sportster. Nice engines but those are one of the biggest, weightiest .45s I've ever seen. The first time I saw one I thought I was looking at a .60.
These older kits were designed to fly with older less powerful engines of sorts. That doesn't mean you can't use a modern engine, but you should keep it in perspective. The run of the mill .19-.40s of that day were lighter weight and had smaller crankcases. They also required less fuel and were less powerful than typical engines of today. So now you want to stuff an over size engine, and an oversize tank in a scale plane that wasn't designed for or around it. Not a good recipe in my opinion. Not that it can't be done but more often than not, the result is disappointing and hard to fly if not disastrous.
My recommendation would be to find a modern smaller case motor in the .25-.36 range. Something like a Magnum .28, Super Tigre .34, Thunder Tiger .36 (my favorite), OS .25FX, OS .32SX or even the new OS .35AX if you have the coin. These engines will have more than enough power to fly the plane. They are reliable and run nice. Will fit without too much modification and can use a 6-8oz tank that will fit the airframe.
Another option you might look into is the bushing .40 size engines like an OS LA.40-.46, Thunder Tiger .42 and such. They have smaller crankcases than Ball bearing engines, are light weight so you wont need tail weight, are the right power output for this plane and get good flight time out of a 6-8 oz fuel tank. They are also affordable!
I know for a fact that the Thunder Tiger .36 has more power than an older K&B ringed .40 which would have been a hot rod in this plane.
Mike
I wonder where you get your info as I have not posted any pictures of engines.
06-09-2010, 02:26 PM
#22
My Feedback: (1)
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
ORIGINAL: optech
I think you need to rethink the .46 idea. Especially since the engine you show in your pic looks like a K&B .45 Sportster. Nice engines but those are one of the biggest, weightiest .45s I've ever seen. The first time I saw one I thought I was looking at a .60.
These older kits were designed to fly with older less powerful engines of sorts. That doesn't mean you can't use a modern engine, but you should keep it in perspective. The run of the mill .19-.40s of that day were lighter weight and had smaller crankcases. They also required less fuel and were less powerful than typical engines of today. So now you want to stuff an over size engine, and an oversize tank in a scale plane
Mike
I think you need to rethink the .46 idea. Especially since the engine you show in your pic looks like a K&B .45 Sportster. Nice engines but those are one of the biggest, weightiest .45s I've ever seen. The first time I saw one I thought I was looking at a .60.
These older kits were designed to fly with older less powerful engines of sorts. That doesn't mean you can't use a modern engine, but you should keep it in perspective. The run of the mill .19-.40s of that day were lighter weight and had smaller crankcases. They also required less fuel and were less powerful than typical engines of today. So now you want to stuff an over size engine, and an oversize tank in a scale plane
Mike
06-09-2010, 09:03 PM
#24
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Copperas Cove, Tx.
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Royal Midi Corsair
ORIGINAL: I-fly-any-and-all
The keyword is scale and the midi size corsair from royal is not true to scale. notice that the vertical and horizontal are solid 2 dimensional (flat) pieces of balsa and do not have the shape of an airfoil only a rounded leading edge. The senior .60 sized corsair is true to scale.
ORIGINAL: optech
I think you need to rethink the .46 idea. Especially since the engine you show in your pic looks like a K&B .45 Sportster. Nice engines but those are one of the biggest, weightiest .45s I've ever seen. The first time I saw one I thought I was looking at a .60.
These older kits were designed to fly with older less powerful engines of sorts. That doesn't mean you can't use a modern engine, but you should keep it in perspective. The run of the mill .19-.40s of that day were lighter weight and had smaller crankcases. They also required less fuel and were less powerful than typical engines of today. So now you want to stuff an over size engine, and an oversize tank in a scale plane
Mike
I think you need to rethink the .46 idea. Especially since the engine you show in your pic looks like a K&B .45 Sportster. Nice engines but those are one of the biggest, weightiest .45s I've ever seen. The first time I saw one I thought I was looking at a .60.
These older kits were designed to fly with older less powerful engines of sorts. That doesn't mean you can't use a modern engine, but you should keep it in perspective. The run of the mill .19-.40s of that day were lighter weight and had smaller crankcases. They also required less fuel and were less powerful than typical engines of today. So now you want to stuff an over size engine, and an oversize tank in a scale plane
Mike
