JL1

My Feedback: (93)

Are any of the broken ones for sale ?

Mustang51

My Feedback: (25)

Guys, I have a CBA with G62s(started out with 3W 50 Is' and a twin sync before I saw the light) on it and about 20 flights. Listen to Kram with what he is saying, he's right. I'd like to add...Some of you guys are wanting to run counter rotation on DAs' and so forth with Twin Syncs. FORGET IT!!!!! You need to remember this... These motors are designed to be light for aerobatic airplanes with a lot of air flow. They don't like being in hotter cowls turning 3 blade props at lower rpms'. There is absolutely NO REASON for counter rotation(IN MODELS) other than it looks kool when the reflecting light hits the prop disk. It's expensive both in converting the motors(which I did) and in props.( why carry two different props for one airplane?) Take a word of advice from what I've been experiencing with my first twin! Use work horse motors like the G62 that perform well in warbirds, on MAGNITO(one less weak link than with ignition), set up MECHANICALLY(not through the radios computer capability) with ZERO slop in the linkage, within 500 rpm of each other, transitioning TOGETHER through the power band. I PROMISE you... you will have MINIMAL issue where reliability is concerned!
One more thing with props, especially counter rotating 3 blades??? YOU WILL BE BREAKING PROPS!!! HAVE SPARES!!!!!!!!!!
Good luck boys! :-)

KISS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

70 ragtop

My Feedback: (24)

G-62 going in a Ziroi in the near future. Got a great deal on a set of Seirra gear wheels and brakes, now I got to build a plane to go around them. G-62s, keep it light, and have fun I know that statement will piss the DA DLE guys off, but they've been around forever for a reason

SWORDSN

My Feedback: (13)

Nothing wrong with that.

kram

My Feedback: (7)

SWORDSN:

I DID NOT say "dark side!"

And I won't admit to thinking it.

It should really be "the light side," since it's electricity, I suppose

My inventory contains a huge investment in thundering pistons, but I am starting to dabble in the occl small electrics, go to some seminars on e-power, but the science is moving fast and I am way behind!



mt

GallopingGhostler

If you had two American made 4-strokes that when idling made a potato - potato - potato sound, then I'd think you drifted to the dark side. (Sorry, couldn't help, I love riding motorcycles. ) Already at close to 1,000 messages, I'd say that the P-38 is a hot topic.

Been a busy year for me, but when I start my Sterling Kit S-17 profile P-38 build with two Enya .09-III CL engines and 36" wingspan, will post photos. Nothing beats the sound of a twin, even if CL.

SWORDSN

My Feedback: (13)

Just kidding about this. I too am dabbling with electrics and from the looks of the changing face of this hobby,there is a lot of "dabbling" going on.

70 ragtop

My Feedback: (24)

Come on, turn towards to the dark side!
I walked away from Jets years ago when turbines were taking over. After seeing how far electric ducted fan setups have come, and how the prices have come way down, I'm jumping back in with both feet, converting some really cool jets. Giddy like a little kid at Christmas about it too
No more do electrics have to be anemic or boring. I found my personal limit with an electric 1/5 FW190-D. It was plenty fast,( I dare say faster than a gasser), unlimited vertical, but didn't do anything for me...it is too quiet.

Don't have that problem on twins, not the same a gas by any means, but still enough presence and noise to make it fun! Can build some bad axx electrics these days, and the P-38 is a prime candidate! Just my opinion, but the Yellow is the perfect size for todays equipment, and I am really looking fwd to the (re)maiden

The "Dark Side" is calling your name!

JL1, don't know. Read thru thread, and you'll see who has what

George, looking fwd to the build

simple

My Feedback: (9)

Sam, I have been playing around with the Cortex Demon on Warbirds for just over 2 weeks. In my humble opinion I believe overall these are best suited for heli's and 3-D action however, having said that with my limited testing I find the cortex to be an outstanding little expensive product.

I just tested it using a light weight 56" electric KI-61 Tony in 10 to 15 mph steady winds gusting to 25+. This is usually a day to stay home, but I wanted to put this thing to the test.

Final results are still pending fine tuning of the gains and testing on a large gas plane however I can now say this, this will allow you to fly on extremely windy days. I think everyone trys to fly on a windy day at least once and finds their plane jumping 25 feet and then dropping 20. The gyro completely eliminated these issues allowing for relatively smooth and stable flying.

The pilot still needs to fly and adjust for the strongest winds but for the most part the gyro adjusts and the pilot can focus on flying. In a twin it may just buy the pilot time to set up for an engine out. As we have all experienced the typical ques such as a frozen prop do not always present themselves. In one of my twin experiences during a high speed low pass the R. engine died but the prop continued to spin in the slipstream forcing me to wait until a wing dipped to begin responding and in that instance the gyro would have been correcting long before me.

The thing I found about the gyro is the requirement for coordinated turns. If I turn using only aileron and elevator the rudder tries to counter and and right the plane again, the same is true of any 3 axis inputs not being used during any maneuver, they will try to counter the movement of the moving channels.

The result of a turn using aileron only is a nose up (knife edge) as the rudder tries to oppose the roll and the tail drops, not something I would want in a twin with an engine out. I recommend a test plane and lots of flying with the gyro before it goes into a Twin where you hope it never ever gets used.

I am having fun playing with the new technologies on the market and kram is right, there is almost no data for gain settings on warbirds. I found where the 3D guys were starting and started moving in small steps until the plane starts to hunt or porpoise on one end or not react on the other. I need another flying day with the Tony and then I am going to transfer to a P-40 and see what it does. So far the high gain is at 72% and the low is 48% using a JR radio.

Here is one landing and taxi after the wind calmed down YouTube: http://youtu.be/bgUe_UM3hqs
<iframe width="300" height="169" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bgUe_UM3hqs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I will video the P-40 testing.

mharper

My Feedback: (1)

I thought I already joined the brother hood, but I can't find my #. I have a foam lightning now and am ready to order the new Legend (VQ) Lightning as soon as it's in stock. Can I join the brotherhood?

70 ragtop

My Feedback: (24)

Sorry, must have missed it

Welcome to the brotherhood!

[ATTACH]2068956[/IMG]

Eddie P

My Feedback: (4)

I also wanted to suggest the Powerbox iGyro 3e as an available alternate to the more expensive Coretex. It's like the Bavarian Demon Coretex but at the low $200 range for price, yet it is way above the level of performance of the EagleTree types - it's pretty much on the same level (or higher according to some) as the Coretex. I've started using it on some of my mid sized electric jets and one warbird so far. It's very nice. I previously used an Eagle Tree Guardian for a few jets and one prop plane and ended up taking it out after a season, I really never quite go used to it and felt is was a little intrusive.

Not so on the iGyro 3e. It "feels" transparent but is working for you in the background and does not try to fly the plane for you at all, just makes the plane fly more solidly. The variable gain is set into a vacant channel and it is completely plug and play. I have not found the rudder to counteract turns, in this gyro, at all. In fact what it has done for my models so far is to make them "feel" like they have a much more solid manner about them but without a heavy feeling to them. Dampened, but no gyro interference present in the feel of the model, if that makes any sense.

There are two types of operation in the iGyro 3e - I'll call the first yype of operation "Mode A" for grins. Mode A works like a traditional gyro stabilized stability system in that it will dampen uncommanded pitches/rolls/yaws... it makes corrections during upsets but then immediately get's out of the game again when the deviation slows to zero rate. In other words, during a gusty day or when flying with a lot of airplanes at a rally and there is a lot of wake turbulence in the pattern, the model seems to track like it's on rails and looks like a big airplane does - not a lot of bouncing or deviations in between commands. The second type of operation, or let's call it "Mode B"... is a "attitude hold" mode where you set a bank angle and pitch and the gyro maintains it. Rudder continues to dampen out normally and will not maintain a yaw, just dampens yaw upsets. For example if you switch to Mode B in flight you would expect to be able to roll into a "slow roll" and the pitch of the airplane should maintain level body attitude and you roll with aileron at the rate you chose by stick deflection. The rudder minimizes yaw to some degree but you'll still need top rudder to maintain altitude as you roll through 360 degrees to use the deflected fuselage as a lifting body or you will lose altitude. As you release the aileron stick the model stops rolling and maintains the last exact bank angle. I don't really see much need (yet) for my flying style to employ "Mode B" but I do see some application for people experimenting with very twitchy airplanes with heavy wing loadings during landing (for example). IOW... Lock your pitch attituide in, and control descent with throttle / thrust, for example. The other application for "mode B" would be bomber guys who like to fly formation. In a smooth hand, Mode B might be a good way to track straight and true with very small or no corrections required as long as you maintain your track and closure on the other models the "over controlling" could be kept to a minimum. Or other scale guys wanting to have a graceful pattern. Like cruise control so to speak.

But for prop warbirds, Mode A woks like a champ. I have, for the most part, just worked with Mode A so far. On initial setup I used a slider lever on my transmitter to select the rate (plus or minus 100 percent end point) and "mode" depending on the position of the slider. Slider "center" was "off." Slider up, was full rate on Mode A. Slider down was full rate on Mode B. Once I get an idea of what general end point gives good dampening (but not twitchyness) the gain channel could be assigned to a 3 position switch. Center is off. Up and down are Mode selections set for best performance at high speed. And gear up or gear down (or flaps for that matter) could be the trigger for the end point on the gyro gain channel to be sub trimmed to something that works better for landing speeds (higher gain selected). It's really simple once you set it up the first time and fly it. I have some large electric jets and turbines I'd like to experiment with Mode B but I am not sure I like the way it "feels". Mode A is completely transparent and does not even feel like a gyro is there if you are used to flying your models neutral and balanced perfectly so that inverted and upright don't require much elevator input. As a caveat, if you like to fly nose heavy and the airplane tends to pitch up as airspeed increases (or needs a lot of down elevator to fly inverted) then the model will feel strange on the pull out of a loop or split S as the model needs to be pulled through the maneuver, it will not pitch to positive G recovery on it's own. It will tend to wait until you pull up via the stick, but will pitch positive on it's own just not as much as it would without the gyro and out of CG and trim. But again, if you fly neutral and centered on CG and trim, you will really not "feel" anything going on with the iGyro 3e except a lot more of a smooth looking flight and something I have to admit that is more pleasing to watch. It really does "hide" in the background if you are used to flying models that are well trimmed and balanced.

Apologies for so much info on these gyros, just thought I'd add to the discussion and introduce this other option that's out there too.

langerl

My Feedback: (5)

Hi Eddie,
Thanks for the detailed review of the iGyro. I've heard a bit about this system and your feedback and general impressions are quite valuable. Thanks! Having said that, do you think "Mode A" or "B" could be useful in suppressing or at least dampening an uncommanded snap and spin from an engine failure in a P38. The yaw is particularly violent, especially if you're at speed and unfortunate enough to be banked toward the failed engine.
As you have included your impressions of gyro support in this thread, perhaps you have been considering this application for a future P38 of your own?

Regards,
langerl

Eddie P

My Feedback: (4)

Hello Langerl, thanks and yes I've always wanted a P-38. It's been on my "to build" list for a very long time. I had a pipe dream of a Yellow P-38 but now that kits are gone I have been pondering the idea of scratch building one.

So still, I am no P-38 expert. You guys have that way over me. I'm just a wanna be so far but hopefully a P-38 jocky some day. I'll only comment on what I know about the iGryo specifically and some of what I know about multi engine models and full size planes as I do have a lot of experience on both of those.

The basic flying mode, or "Mode A" as the nickname goes, would be very useful in a "general" multiengine model with an engine out scenario. I think it would be the most natural "mode" to fly in, in general, and would respond with immediate rudder as soon as yaw was sensed. But, any gyro will have it has limitations and those limits are the airframe limits. One of the posters in this thread with a lot of P-38 experience really laid out the issues in such a great way. I've been a multi engine instructor in real planes for years and have done a lot of "pattern work" and sneaky tricks to students causing engine failures and have a lot of time with the rudder full stop to one side with one or more engines roaring and one or more engines playing dead in both jets and props. It seems the more things change the more they stay the same with any multi engine model, or plane. At the end of the day there is a very real limitation in aerodynamic control with a mutiengine design, flying with one engine out. P-38's seem to embody this with gusto too. First, most P-38's are very highly powered and that increases the rudder requirement - in this case, the rudder required can be well above what the the rudders and vertical stabilizers can aerodynamically achieve if the model is slow or under high power (or both). So the gyro is useless beyond full rudder input, and full rudder will not be enough in some flight regimes to maintain aerodynamic control, and the dreaded snap roll and flat spin will soon follow if the power doesn't come right back. Secondly, just as rudders are thought of as aerodynamic control, the engines have to be thought of as something that can be used to aerodynamically control the model with, too. IOW, they have to be brought back to allow the rudders to work - but left high enough in some cases to allow the model to fly still. Threading the needle if you will.

I think a P-38 is still gonna snap roll and spin if it's under full power with or without a gyro system. But if you can get the power back right away and recover from the snap roll, then I suspect that iGyro or Coretex will help keep your model straight enough on yaw and roll during the recovery that the pilot might concentrate more on a reasonable touchdown flight path than try to put all the pieces back together, all at once, during a low level recovery and flare. That's just my gut feeling based on flying the iGyro on other models (have not flown the Coretex but everyone who has says great things about it)

Thanks again, and I hope I'm not coming off trying to tell P-38 guys what to do with P-38's. You guys carry on and I'll keep trying to weave a good P-38 project into the build queue.

SWORDSN

My Feedback: (13)

The more the merrier

70 ragtop

My Feedback: (24)

The Yellow rebuild is ready for paint! 33lbs as shown balancing with 5300 10S pack in each cowl, gear doors, everything hinged, servos in and rigged. Going to add panel lines and some details, so figure by the time it done, 35-36 lbs RTF. For the amount of repairs it needed, I'm pretty happy with that

Next stop paint

simple

My Feedback: (9)

Ragtop, this is the most interesting rebuild I have seen in a long time - Congrats for getting over the hump!

simple

My Feedback: (9)

I used 62's on a twin and while the 50cc crowd will argue equal performance I have to disagree - I have DA 50's on my P-38 and G-62's on my P-61 and the G-62's hands down produce more torque over a wider power-band and provide a larger choice in props. Sam did the same on his 61 and he is more qualified to talk about overall technical variances but from a novice I really like the 62's. I think Sam had his clocked at well over 120+. I reduced weight with electronic ignitions and I love the sound these make going by. You should not have an issue fitting them in the cowls.

The sound of twin 62's is fun.
The video is old and low quality but you can hear them run on 4 blade solo props just fast forward to the flight at about 1:34. http://youtu.be/gxVvd4GVZ_k?list=PLF8D1C167E61DA6EA
This flight was on 3 blade Mejzliks and the sound is different but I can still listen to it every day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVqLUCNcbgw

70 ragtop

My Feedback: (24)

Thanks Dave

It's coming along

Just watched your videos, VERY nice!

Zoomer02

I just received my new VQ P-38 yesterday. This will replace my old VQ that slowly cartwheeled at Bomber Field last year. I was going to rebuild it, but they cam out with the new one before I got too far along. If anyone is interested in rebuilding it, it will be available when I get all of my flight equipment off of it an into my new P-38. Free to a good home pay for shipping only it is the Putt Putt Maru aluminum color version.

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

Zoomer
Sent you a pm.

[email protected]

This is mine. Dle55 counter rotating and thee blade props menz with twin sync, sierra gear and brakes, fowler flaps. Flies like a dream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzxcv0iEL5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEn_R5G1ONs

Judah Ben-Hur

Here are some pictures of my brother's P38 Lightning. It is scratch built from Art Johnson plans and he has been flying it every year since the early 80's. Well, maybe take one year off because of a broken back. He scratch built his own working fowler flaps plus all the other 'doodads' this plane entails. It was a 3 winter's build. It has .61 HB PDP's for power along with Futaba radio gear. He recently converted it over to 2.4. This bird tips the scales at 18 1/2 pounds. This plane is painted up in Thomas B. McGuire's Pudgy V scheme of the 475th.

Did I say this plane?

Well he's building another one and it should be ready to go in the spring. This one will have .75 Super Tigres and will be painted up in another scheme from the 475th. The painting is about 80% done. The build pictures are from the newer plane. I have some with partial painting done but they are on another computer.

70 ragtop

My Feedback: (24)

WOW, what a beauty! I love the hand carved turbochargers

The Art Johnson model has some very nice lines, very true its big brother. Obviously your brother is a real craftsman with a great attention to detail. The pictures, and the fact he's flown a nitro P-38 almost every year for roughly 30 years is a testament to that!

I have been thinking of blowing up a set of those plans to 114" and using them to build a hybrid Johnson/Ziroli. Would be doing this in an effort to improve the scale lines of the Ziroli and lighten it up.....Art Johnson got it right
Would love to see some more pictures

Well done!

fw190

My Feedback: (37)

That all wood P38 is awesome, person gots skills and patience!

I thought the Art Johnson plans was thinned (stretched out) and the Ziroli was a lot closer?

I had a 6 month setback so I had to restart all over on my twin-twin builds, had to make two fresh kits and it was not easy to say the least (see remnants in the background). Added some improvements since I had not made any in the last 10 years.