Scratchie

I'm trying to find out what is an averageready to flyweight for the Jack Stafford B-24 kit. Anyone have one?

Thanks

aerowoof

depends on finish and options.usually about 13 1/2 pounds with all options and glassed with 2 strokes .25

Scratchie

Thanks, Iwas looking at the wing loading and wondering just how high it would get with blassing, retracts... Do you have one, how does it handle on landing?

JeffH

My Feedback: (43)

My dad's was 16 pounds covered in panel sized chrome ultracote and electrified with power .25 motors and 2 4s 5000MaH Lipos. Robart retracts, the fowler flaps shown on the plans and no other details.
It was truly an awful flying plane. The third landing tore the gear out which destroyed the wing beyond reasonable repair. Fixing it would have added yet more weight which would have made things worse. The plane sunk a bit too fast, and even adding judicious amounts of power did not stop the sink quick enough. When slowed down, the plane becomes very unresponsive to inputs. If that landing didnt do the gear in, one of the next ones would have since you had to land so fast. The only thing is did well was look good flying directly overhead at about 150 ft. It looked like a bomber on a bomb run.
If you can make less than 13 pounds, it will probably be ok. Over all, the scale is just too small to fly well.

Scratchie

Unfortunate, I'm thinking about making an electric version also. Do you have an idea of what addedd all the weight, any ideas on how to build one lighter, maybe around the 13-14lb range?

aerowoof

at 13 1/2 pounds it flies fine.even on three engines you can't tell you lost one.built mine years ago with the first generation of os 25's.I could see problems at the 16 pound weight probably close to wing loading of 50 oz/sq ft.mine has the goldberg retracts that came with the original kits and have had no problems.

JeffH

My Feedback: (43)

Other than wood selection, there aren't many areas to save weight. The fuse is just a shell, and the wing is foam. That does not allow many areas to save weight. With the batteries in the bombay, that does contribute some weight due to the long copper wires. I do not know if a 2500 lipo in each nacelle would be lighter or not. Strip planking the nacelles would save some grams here and there vs. the thick sheets that you shape as per the kit.

Scratchie

aerowoof, did you put in the retractable lower turret, operational bombay doors? Iwas think that omitting them might save a few ounces.

aerowoof

bomb bay dors are just corugated paper and the mechanism itself is dowel and plywood weigs just a few ounces same with the the ball turret.most of the weight is added in the fiberglassing and finish stages.my radio equipment is a lot heaveir than what is available now and with the water based poly you should be able to save alot more.

Scratchie

I think I'm going to go for it once a kit comes up that isn't ridiculously priced.I’m going to paint it using an airbrush and omit the retractable features (keeping the flaps through) – I want this to be a good flyer with wing loading hopefully less than 40 oz/sf.I’ve read posts of people building them with final weights at 16-17 lbs, not good…

What did you paint/cover it with?

luckyb

Just FYI, I built and flew ( 30 flights) a Don Smith B-24 ( a bit larger ) and can honestly say that it was the worst flying model I have had my hands on. Not that there aren't good ones out there, just my experience. The "Davis" wing ( built for speed) stops flying at the most inoportune moments and like a previous poster, drops out when landing. Beware this plane at higher weights. Just my opinion..........Doug Smith (450 flights on a Don Smith B-17) Good Luck.

Scratchie

any idea what the wing loading was?

Firepower R/C

My Feedback: (10)

I am pretty sure you can still get laser cut short kits of this model...

luckyb

The plane was heavy because I believe in gas engines. If I had to say, I'll bet it was in the mid 50's............Doug