Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Warbirds and Warplanes
Reload this Page >

Warbirds difficulty to land

Notices
RC Warbirds and Warplanes Discuss rc warbirds and warplanes in this forum.

Warbirds difficulty to land

Old 06-07-2015, 06:09 AM
  #26  
scoobiemario
My Feedback: (8)
 
scoobiemario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Williamsburg, VA
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by patrnflyr View Post
My CG's are dead on. Thanks for your advice. Nobody mentioned killing the flaps when wheels touch down? It's a no no on my full scale plane so you don't get confused and retract the gear but does anybody do it as part of their landing sequence?
I edited my original post to correct spelling and some things. It was late when I posted. Sorry.
I do see where one can switch gear instead of flaps. My flaps are on slider, not switch. (JR11x) that makes it easier to differentiate.

Now. Two more things: are you using expo on your controls? Maybe not enough? P51 and Jug both have factory throws and 35% expo with full throws. Than 30 and 25% respectively for lower throws

Two: is your gear set with toe in, out or neutral? I try to set it neutral. Too much toe in can cause drag and nose overs.
Old 06-07-2015, 06:28 AM
  #27  
chris923
My Feedback: (53)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by hellcat56 View Post
I'm thinking it could be your landing set up

I have no problem landing my heavy metal warbird
all I have to do is replace two props, repair the wheel doors, fix the air leak
and I am ready for another flight


I hate that when it "that" happens.................
Old 06-07-2015, 07:00 AM
  #28  
hellcat56
My Feedback: (21)
 
hellcat56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hurst, TX
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Actually perfect landing plane
Zirolli 101 inch
When you have tricycle gear almost like cheating
makes me look good

Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	b 25 1.JPG
Views:	548
Size:	53.6 KB
ID:	2101071  
Old 06-07-2015, 07:20 AM
  #29  
Lifer
My Feedback: (1)
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 4,331
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

My preference is to always mix a little down elevator to flap mix. When at idle, I want the plane to descend on its own. If not, an unexpected stall can sneak in and really ruin your day. It usually works out to about 1/16th to 3/32nds of in inch of throw.

FWIW
Old 06-07-2015, 07:30 AM
  #30  
RBean
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lady Lake, FL
Posts: 1,461
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

It depends on the plane. All require a stabilized approach and judicious use of throttle. Most are best landed on the mains. The easiest landing are my CMP Zero and Kyosho Corsair. Either of these can be landed on the mains or three point. (Is it because both or models of carrier planes?). The most difficult is my CMP Bf 109. It combines narrow gear, long nose and relatively heavy weight. On the 109, I moved the gear forward to the scale location to help prevent nose overs. This makes it very difficult to land on the mains as any rate of decent on touch down will cause a bounce. Three point was difficult because it got too slow in three point attitude and will drop a wing on or just before touchdown. After a ground loop broke off the tail wheel strut I replaced it with a longer strut, use only half flaps and three points became easier.
Old 06-07-2015, 09:26 AM
  #31  
Ralph White
 
Ralph White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Neoga, IL
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

When I am ready to land I throttle back to about 1/3 throttle, then drop the retracts and then drop to full flaps. I do all those things before getting into the landing approach. On my TF P-51 the only thing the plane does when I drop to flaps is the attitude of the plane is a little more nose down while flying level (maybe 2 or 3 degrees) and the plane slows down a little quicker when throttle is lowered. With the flaps full down on landing the plane seems to stick better on touchdown. To answer patrnflyr's question, I leave the flaps full down after touchdown and taxi back to pit area. Here is a picture of the amount of flaps my P-51C has. Note the top surface of the flaps is about the same angle as the joint between the scoop and fuselage.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	20140419_132028.jpg
Views:	583
Size:	4.02 MB
ID:	2101109  

Last edited by Ralph White; 06-07-2015 at 10:00 AM.
Old 06-07-2015, 10:14 AM
  #32  
Chris Nicastro
My Feedback: (1)
 
Chris Nicastro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Coeur d'Alene, ID
Posts: 2,944
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by patrnflyr View Post
My CG's are dead on. Thanks for your advice. Nobody mentioned killing the flaps when wheels touch down? It's a no no on my full scale plane so you don't get confused and retract the gear but does anybody do it as part of their landing sequence?
Yes depending on the plane. The Corsair with full flaps can blank out the effectiveness of the tail. Ive had this happen once and it caused it to veer off into a fence even with full opposite controls. Adding power would have been unsafe and more disastrous.
Old 06-07-2015, 04:44 PM
  #33  
dabigboy
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Disclaimer: the biggest scale RC model I've flown is my 40-size GP Cub.

Just a thought....in the full-scale Decathlon, I was taught (and discovered firsthand....) that for a wheels-landing, you really need to dip a bit of down-elevator as soon as the mains touch and weight is transferred to the wheels. This is because the gear are in front of the CG.....upward force at the gear will tend to stop the nose while the tail continues to drop. NOT doing this increased the likelihood of a bounce. It seemed to be especially pronounced on grass vs asphalt (I was told it was because the gear were able to spring out more in the soft grass, then rebound of course). For near-stall landings (three-points, or at least nose-high), it's not as critical.

As I recall, I may have actually tried this landing method with my 40 Cub (several years ago, before I stripped it down for a restoration). Seems like it made landings more consistent....I shall have to experiment again when it's finished, especially now that it has scale bouncy-bouncy gear.

I would also be very careful about pulling power right before touchdown. Think about it: if you are nose-high at all, then your prop is contributing to lift. Pulling power will instantly kill some lift, and possibly result in a rough touchdown. Of course, if you are almost completely level in a wheels-landing, then maybe it won't be such an issue. But my experience is that most aircraft, if they are in slow-flight (as they are during landing), the nose is pointing up quite a bit. This is something that is not discussed enough even in real flight training, IMO. We are taught (rather rigidly) that wings are for lift and prop is for thrust, rather than shown a vector-based approach.

Matt
Old 06-08-2015, 08:56 AM
  #34  
sidgates
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

My experience in full scale was flying a PA-18 for 20hrs and T-6 for 120hrs in USAF pilot training. The Air Force taught only 3 point landings. When I got a TF P-47 I was sure I wanted to 3 point land it. After varying results I settled on wheel landings in the model P-47. A 3 point landing requires touch down at the correct air speed every time and without that feedback I found consistent 3 point landing hard to achieve.

I now have air speed telemetry and will try the 3 point landing again.
Old 06-08-2015, 10:30 AM
  #35  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,206
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Many of the landing issues I have seen with warbirds is related to airspeed/ energy. Too much of it. Most are too scared to get their model slow enough. It is good to test stall characteristics up high, to get familiar.
Old 06-08-2015, 12:06 PM
  #36  
sidgates
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vertical grimmace View Post
Many of the landing issues I have seen with warbirds is related to airspeed/ energy. Too much of it. Most are too scared to get their model slow enough. It is good to test stall characteristics up high, to get familiar.
================================================== ===========================
Verticle,
I am in full agreement. With heavy wing loaded models (warbirds & jets) you don't dare stall on final approach so most guys make sure they are too fast and then it is hard not to overshoot. I have flown my 1/4 scale Cub and my Shoestring with telemetry air speed and my approaches are much more consistent. I plan on getting air speed now on my jets and warbird. My airspeed is announced on the Tx speaker and the screen read out.
Old 06-08-2015, 12:13 PM
  #37  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,206
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sidgates View Post
================================================== ===========================
Verticle,
I am in full agreement. With heavy wing loaded models (warbirds & jets) you don't dare stall on final approach so most guys make sure they are too fast and then it is hard not to overshoot. I have flown my 1/4 scale Cub and my Shoestring with telemetry air speed and my approaches are much more consistent. I plan on getting air speed now on my jets and warbird. My airspeed is announced on the Tx speaker and the screen read out.
Which radio are you using? I just got a Jeti DS14 and it has all of these capabilities. It will be a while before I implement many of them. If the speed readings can be consistent enough, you could get close to the perfect speed every time before touch down. If you are off, you can go around.

What I am seeing, is that many of the newer ARF offerings are really light. The Top flite FW 190 for example. So you have to get it even slower.
Old 06-08-2015, 12:24 PM
  #38  
teamscalepilot
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ridgeland, SC
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Practice, Practice,Practice!! I fly the TF GS 51 and 47, the 47 will 3 point and wheel land easly. The 51 likes wheeling landing. I too have spent many hours watching arivals at Oshkosh, every one was a wheel landing in a 51. the only 3 point I have ever seen was Jeff Effel on grass in NY and it was textbook. Did i say Practice??
Old 06-08-2015, 05:28 PM
  #39  
sidgates
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by vertical grimmace View Post
Which radio are you using? I just got a Jeti DS14 and it has all of these capabilities. It will be a while before I implement many of them. If the speed readings can be consistent enough, you could get close to the perfect speed every time before touch down. If you are off, you can go around.

What I am seeing, is that many of the newer ARF offerings are really light. The Top flite FW 190 for example. So you have to get it even slower.
================================================== =================================================
First I purchased a Weatronic Tx module and 2ea Micro 12Ch receivers. The air speed sensors were hard to get and very expensive so I purchased a Taranis 16Ch with 3ea 8Ch receivers. I intend to test putting the Weatronic Tx module in the Taranis external slot and using Weatronic for the primary controlls and the Taranis Tx with the 8Ch receiver for additional controls and for telemetry. I have an air speed sensor, an altitude sensor, a GPS and a secondary voltage sensor. The Taranis has built in telemetry for receiver/servo voltage and RSSI.

I didn't like the soft stick centering on the Taranis so I made metal centering arms and worked out very good. I still feel the Weatronic RF link is better so that is why I want to use it for the primary controls. I think the Jeti is a comparable RF link to the Weatronic.

My Taranis air speed reads in Knots. On my Shoestring I did a stall test at altitude and it stalled at 31 knots. On landing the Shoestring I can hold it off touch down to approx. 27 knots. My conclusion is the difference in stall at altitude and the 27 knot touch down is ground affect.

If the price of air speed for the Jeti is reasonable I would get it right away.
Old 06-08-2015, 05:40 PM
  #40  
patrnflyr
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
 
patrnflyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Granbury, TX
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by teamscalepilot View Post
Practice, Practice,Practice!! I fly the TF GS 51 and 47, the 47 will 3 point and wheel land easly. The 51 likes wheeling landing. I too have spent many hours watching arivals at Oshkosh, every one was a wheel landing in a 51. the only 3 point I have ever seen was Jeff Effel on grass in NY and it was textbook. Did i say Practice??
You mean I can't pull it out once or twice a year for a warbirds meet and so ok? Haha
Old 06-11-2015, 03:46 AM
  #41  
verbails
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: auckland, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi
This topic is close to my heart! I have spent too much time repairing broken uc parts and broken mounts replacing $70 props and missing good fly ins because of unserviceable warbirds. Although I have not damaged anything for close to two years I did this weekend!!!!! The problem (major brain fart!) I changed my standard approach and knocked a leg out! I have been for a long time been lowering flags and gear and flying a complete circuit to slow and think and plan I do a fairly steep approach curving in from about halfway down the down wind leg with about quarter throttle and aim for a point about a quarter down the runway! When I am about two foot of and level I throttle back and wheel it in! Had worked good for many flights!
Reading all the posts here I consider no one wrong most warbirds suffer high wing loading mostly as a result of detail work and original design this is why they carve through the sky and are very rewarding to fly! So find a way that works for you and stick to it. Wheel it on as this is a faster approach you won't drop a wing if your wing loading is high. A curving approach looks good and can be steep without speeding up to much! No need to aim for the threshold you should still have plenty of runway. No sense in landing short this can be worst.
My problem in the weekend was a bad approach from the beginning the fix? Go around its no sin that is why I always call a possible landing may happen!

Chris
Old 06-11-2015, 03:52 AM
  #42  
verbails
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: auckland, NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

http://youtu.be/s2_2adMIceo
Landing starts about 2:30 this works for me!
Old 06-11-2015, 04:00 AM
  #43  
chris923
My Feedback: (53)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The only way to learn is practice as it has been said. If you come in too hot and force the plane down you will bounce. Once you bounce you HAVE TO hit the throttle and go around again. As long as your engine responses your good. If you allow the plane bounce twice you will lose to much airspeed and forward momentum you still "might" save it. As I learn by experience the third is a death sentence, it's happen to me once, but I have scene it several times by other pilots. The only "3" bounce landing I have scene successful was a Ziroli AT6 and he broke his prop, the plane as on it"s back when he finished.
Old 06-11-2015, 06:03 AM
  #44  
Lifer
My Feedback: (1)
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 4,331
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

I agree with the above! Landing is a maneuver and must be practiced like any other maneuver. Obviously, variables apply but if you stick to a routine, you will get better. This is the way the military teaches it for flying and it works well for them. They DO NOT bore holes in the sky and hope their very expensive equipment survives.

Proper altitude, down wind turn, final turn and approach. Power all the way down, no idling til the wheels touch. Try it, it works.
Old 06-13-2015, 03:53 PM
  #45  
kenair
My Feedback: (10)
 
kenair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: winnipeg, MB, CANADA
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by verbails View Post
Hi
. No sense in landing short this can be worst.
My problem in the weekend was a bad approach from the beginning the fix? Go around its no sin that is why I always call a possible landing may happen!

Chris
Old RCAF saying, "better to be long at 10 knots then short at a 100 knots."
Old 06-13-2015, 04:16 PM
  #46  
vertical grimmace
My Feedback: (1)
 
vertical grimmace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ft collins , CO
Posts: 7,206
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by verbails View Post
http://youtu.be/s2_2adMIceo
Landing starts about 2:30 this works for me!
Except that heavy side load he put on the gear is asking to fold one up. Too me it looked like he had too much energy. Another thing, grass really helps out, but many of us do not have that luxury.
Old 06-14-2015, 06:57 AM
  #47  
kmtranmd
My Feedback: (71)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irvine CA
Posts: 895
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Most of you guys are spot on with giving tips to use throttle to control the descent, keep the approach low and steady on the throttle until touch down.
Too many newbies bring them in like a hockey stick: steep approach, idle down too early, flare too short.
Think of how a heavy wing loading jet comes in and you get the right picture.
The TopFlite P47 and P51 are very predictable warbirds to practice and learn good techniques. Make them a bit noseheavy and you will see dramatic improvement on landing.
I've flown several spitfires, not the CARF, and find them to be floaters and like to noseover, not ideal airframe for newbie warbird pilots.
Old 06-21-2015, 02:43 PM
  #48  
patrnflyr
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (7)
 
patrnflyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Granbury, TX
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Went out today and flew the P-47. Had two perfect flights and two perfect landings. Unfortunately I didn't realize my less than perfect landings last time bent the reunions on my Robarts. Amazing how fragile they are. Oh well, flew them with gear down just to get my confidence back
Old 06-21-2015, 05:16 PM
  #49  
dubs1946
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have copied a blog. below i am running on our web site wrcs.org.au with my trials and problems with landing my Vallancourt 92inch Hurricane.
The flight testing has stopped for now due to the very wet weather we are having here in Australia for the last two months as the ground is to boggy for large aircraft. The testing has taken place over the past year.



blackfingernail Wrote:
Vaillanocourt Hurricane 92inch
Hi I am in the process of sorting out the wing incidence and wash out for the Hurricane, and need some clarification on why on the plan the wing is set at +2 degrees the tail at +1 and a half degrees and the washout at -2 degrees
I have asked around and put the question on RCU and not had any answers that make real sense.
Why the +2 degrees on the wing? the tail ok i have put + degrees on large aircraft tails before it has the same action as a little down elevator and that just pushes the nose down a bit not a bad thing no problem.
Also the -2 degrees washout at the tips on the wings that works as well but if you put +2 on the wing and -2 on the washout to me that cancels the washout. Am i missing something? apart from bits of my brain from a misspent youth.
Any ideas before i nail the wing at zero and the tail at + 1 and a half and the wing tips at -2 washout.
This is a rebuild. The wing was wrecked after 6 flights and the fuse given to me for resurrection, the original aircraft was very well built and very accurate with the incidences set as the plan but it was a pig and a half to land, so i am thinking ahead hoping for better landings.
Dave.

I think I have worked out Roy Vailancourt’s reason on his plan for the +2 degrees incidence on the wing. I did not think he would build in the incidence just for fun but had a valid flight reason.
The +2 degrees means the leading edge of the wing make it 2 degrees higher then the trailing edge when it sits in the fuselage.
As I have stated before. On the plan the tail is also set at +1-1/2 degrees, and the washout is -2 degrees or the trailing edge of the wing tips up by 2 degrees.
As I see it the wing in flight WILL FLY AT ZERO degrees and that will point the nose down by 2 degrees and the tail set at +1-1/2 degrees also helps to push the nose down as it acts like a small amount of down elevator.
With the wing flying at zero degrees that means the wing tips will have the required -2 degrees of washout.
I think that makes sense.
I have set the wing in the fuselage of the resurrection I am doing at zero the tail at +1-1/2 and the washout on the tips at – 2 degrees that will mean I will have the nose/engine in line with the wing at zero.
Roy Vailancourt has an interesting way of making down thrust on the engine but do you need engine down thrust?.
I don,t.
Dave.
RE: Vaillanocourt Hurricane 92inch
An update on where i am with this.
That's if anyone apart from me is interested.
The 3W85 i have installed started to play 'hard ball' i could not get a good steady tick-over and the top end was dodgy as well. It had dropped 7-800 rpm.
I tried fiddling the nuts of the needles cleaning every filter known to man.
The engine was in and out more then ten times but no go, so i put it down to the carb. in some way.
The engine had not run for about 18 months so the diafram my have been stuffed but it did look ok.
I rang Erny in SA. the 3W man and a new set of needles and a carb rebuild kit was on its way and me minus $100+.
Still no go i then pulled the reeds out and bingo the reed housing had cracked and was leaking like the Mona dam. So more lula to Erny for reeds and housing.
Yes the top end was back to over 6000rpm with a 26X10 but the tick over was still hiding somewhere.
This hobby can drive you nuts.
I bought from a mates estate an old 3W TOC. twin, i am not sure of the size at a guess about 80 to 100cc its an old model used in the USA.
I was after the carb more then the engine as it was the same as on my 85.
I swapped the carb and bingo i had my tick over back, so once again on to Erny and a new carb was bought about $200 ouch!.
So with everything in and working ok it was time for a flight test.
The weather was good last Sunday and i had run out of excuses.
I had set the cg on the front of the recommended area and that entailed 4 Pounds of lead in the nose. All that added up to 36.75 Pounds in the old money, for a 92 inch span on the fat side but considering how thick the wing is.
I had to modify my incidence meter so it would work on the very thick wing. When you get into large heavy aircraft 'wing loading' turns into 'Volume of lift' so its not the same as smaller lighter aircraft. Stan had the original unbroken aircraft at about 33 Pounds so not to bad with my 36.75 Pounds and with the heavier 3W85 in. He had 6 flights before the tree grabbed it with a DA50.
I build like a heavy brick chook house but considering i was putting in 9 HP. instead of the DA50 thats about 5 HP. it had to be upgraded.
The new wing only,with 6 servo's and custom retracts weighs in at just over 13 Pounds.
The first take off attempt was interesting the tail popped up ok on run out but when i gunned it and the 3W certainly has some 'Welly' i could not hold the tail level for a two wheel take off, the nose dug in and stuffed the prop.
Not forgetting i had taken out the 6 degrees of down thrust that was in the original set up. As it stands now it has two degrees of down thrust.
Hmm i thought not enough elevator to hold the tail level so as i have three elevator rate positions set and after more taxi tests on high rate where i had the aircraft on two wheels ok. time for another go.
The second attempt was the same as the first when i gave it some stick the nose went down and ate some more worms this time the prop survived.
Back home for a think, i will retest the cg with he tank full i have a 36 oz tank in.
Its 36oz as i have twice run out of fuel with a 32 oze. The 3W is very powerful but that means its a thirsty engine.
Most likely take some lead out and move the cg back as much as i can dare, and reset the elevator for more travel thinking i may have to use i high elevator for take off and mid range for flight.
The lack of elevator on the two take of attempts is classic for 'to much nose weight', the more you move the cg back the more the elevator has bite, i am sure there are a few out there who have tried to fly a rearward set cg .I know i have and it does not last long.
If the aircraft had taken off i would certainly have lost the elevator for the flair when landing and that would make a hell of a mess in the middle of the field.
Dave.
RE: Vaillanocourt Hurricane 92inch
Well its flown, to say i was nervous would be an understatement.
I will go through the things i have changed from the plan and the original aircraft fuselage that i was given.
The new built wings are more or less as the plan except for the extra strengthening for the 3W 85cc that is installed. The wing was mostly strengthened in the centre section and wing dihedral connection.
The wheel axles. The plan had them at 90mm. in front of the cg. that's 3-1/2 inches in old money, that's to far forward unless you like to bunny hop down the the runaway on landing.
I moved them back to 55mm. or about 2 inches. There was a mistake in the fuselage build on the down thrust of the engine, its now set at 2 degrees down.
The wing incidence on the plan was set at + 2 degrees, that means the leading edge of the wing was up by 2 degrees i have taken that out and its set at zero now. The tailplane was set at
+ 1.5 degrees i have left that as it was built as this has only a small effect on the flying and tends to push the nose down but that normally will be corrected in flight by the elevator anyhow.
There is 1 degree wash out in the wing tips and i fly with a bit more washout set in the ailerons.
The original fuselage firewall and surrounds were built very strongly and did not need upgrading just a new mount for the 3W85.
I had put 3 Pounds of lead in the nose to bring the cg to the front of the plan setting, i thought i had 4 Pounds in but on checking it was 3.
For this flight test i removed nearly 2 Pounds of lead from the nose to bring it back to the limit on the plan and i also increased the elevator throw to its maximum any more then that and i would have had to do surgery to the rear end. That makes the aircraft around 35 Pounds dry but flyable.
I have three settings on the elevator and ailerons and due to the nose over on the last flight attempt i set it on high rates for this attempt. I might add with the removal of the lead and the increased in the elevator throw this could have made it a short flight. The Ailerons were set at the mid range.
More taxi tests went ok and the tail popped up no problem, so on this 3rd flight attempt i was more cautious with the roll out and had it up and controlled on its wheels before i gave it the gun, it surged forward and up it went.
The climb out was too steep due to the high elevator setting and it did slightly drop the dreaded left wing but no problem i corrected in plenty of time, i grabbed plenty of hight before attempting the first turn down wind trying to keep it as flat as possible, it turned on a sixpence.
That first turn is always the worst but it was great, i trimmed it out it needed very little, i did the necessary loop, roll and inverted manoeuvres for the rego. or heavy model flight test, when inverted it needed no down on the elevator to hold it level so the cg was at its maximum rearward and made the aircraft very manoeuvrable and nice to fly it was a joy and bags of poke from the 3W.
I did not gun it pass the pits for the boys in the peanut gallery, when testing something like this i always try and behave myself with no cowboy manoeuvres until i am totally confident in my build and engine.
I then tested half flaps and full flaps with no noticeable movement in the nose of the aircraft.
I find with the more heavy aircraft you get less nose movement when the flaps are used.
The landing well lets say it was not my best it was more of an arrival then a landing, i have made it a habit to fly a few approaches before attempting to put the wheels on the deck.
This helps as well to see how a new aircraft responds to "Low and slow" so a few nerve racking half flaps, wheels down slow passes were done, the peanut gallery loved them but not me.
On one of the descents at half flaps with wheels down and when i was just over the threshold of the field i put on full flaps and went for the landing but i forgot to go to high rates on the elevator as i had agreed with my spotter in my flight plan. Needless to say it tripped up and stuffed the prop.
So i failed my rego. but only a decent landing left to do on the next attempt and its all done.
Overall i am very happy how it flew.
There are no shots or video yet as its still in its pyjamas and not looking much like a 2C Hurricane but even as it is it has very good presence in the air.
JAN. 2015 my new year resolution to get this down without breaking the prop.
3 flights 3 props so far. Again i forgot to go to high rates on landing but i can blame my spotter Al. this time as he was supposed to remind me when i put full flaps on i must go to high rates.
I have a feeling that the flaps are smothering the elevator even on high rates.
Not forgetting the CG. is not far from its rearmost position where it should make the elevator more responsive.
On the last landing i thought i had it nailed but when applying the flair not much happened except it tripped up but then i was not on high rate elevator .
The flaps on this aircraft are four very big split flaps. So the next one hopefully i will remember high rates.
When testing a new aircraft like this there is only one way and that's suck it and see and try to keep it in one bit while learning the landing set up.
All the systems are working great and it fly,s like a dream. Honks of power but not yet time to ring it out and i am giving the "Custom retracts" a good work out but as my spotter is Al. the guy that makes them i don,t have far to go to complain.
On testing i only use el.cheapo Chinese props so no big deal if the aircraft is still in one bit.
How slow dare i land it? HMMM. Without spinning it in.
Here is my Top flight P47 landing you can see the steep landing approach.
This is by far the easiest large aircraft i have for landing.

https://youtu.be/XiW7wSFBqEA

Our field WRCS is tricky to land large aircraft.
From the most used end there is a steep decent due to a hill in the way.
I spent two weeks building a sliding cockpit for the Hurricane but bent it when it turned over on landing, slight damage but still not wanted.
Dave.
Jan 4th flight number four
I managed to land it without breaking the prop.!
BUT.
The take off was ok not the best it likes to drop a wing on take off even if i hold it down on the ground to gain some flat line speed.
I settled myself down and tested the centre of the runaway, i managed to find that after a couple of go's so down with the wheels and half flaps yes i did forget to put on high rates on the elevator but this time Al reminded me.
When i test fly a new aircraft my mind is going 1000% and the nerves screaming and adrenaline pumping that's why i have a spotter.
Thanks Al.
Our field is in a large disused quarry that has been refurbished over the last 35 years, grass, sheds etc.etc. and is open to the sea at one end and that's where the wind mostly comes from, a North Easter so you have to approach the field from the other end or the hill end most days.
The flying basin has a 150 foot high ridge around and is about a 1 kilometre across so there is plenty of room to fly in and the threshold of the runaway is at the base of the hill to the right hand side.
So descending from the hill end lined up with the runaway is more or less from 200 feet at a 45 degree angle to the start of the runaway.
So with a large heavy aircraft mine is 35 Pounds it will speed up on the decent even at tick over with full flaps. So it starts out over the threshold mostly to fast.
Alternatively you can do a descending turn from the ridge opposite but with that approach you have a back drop behind the aircraft of trees and bush tricky visually but you can judge the speed better as you will be looking at the aircraft more or less from a top view but you have to finish the turn over the threshold and straighten the wings, this can be a bit tricky as there are trees each side of the runaway, one has my name on it 3 times.
So for me its the steep decent hill end but front on its tricky to judge the speed as it arrives over the threshold.
This time it looked good it was at the correct attitude when it arrived over the threshold so it was a go for landing the first touch was a bounce i had good elevator but just a smidgen more would have given a perfect flared landing, it bounced 4 foot but i held it very nicely on the wing, flaps and elevator and it floated well but still with some speed to touch down on two wheels and i managed to balance it nicely holding it flat but by this time i was running out of runaway and it tripped up at the end in the long grass and stuffed my already damaged cockpit some more but my $30 Chinese paint mixer on the engine was intact.
There is no justice.

RE: Vaillanocourt Hurricane 92inch
Fun and games and two more flights
The fifth flight is best forgotten again we both, Al. and i forgetting to go to high rates on the elevator and it just tipped over slowly but the prop survived this bit of China has a charmed life.

For the next flight the 6th. i had a look at the configuration of the wheels and took out some of the toe in, just a smidgen and also one of the tyres was rubbing on the retract scissors so put a washer in there.
With the aircraft in the van on the way to the field i could smell petrol and on inspection there was a small leak, luckily it sits upright in the cradle so was dripping out of the aircraft and not into the electronics.
At the field i pulled the tank out. sounds easy to say but nothing on this aircraft is easy.
It was dripping out of the bung i tightened it up but no better so had to pull the bung out and found the lip of the hole had a small split.
What can one say? except it was a SDS or Hobby King tank i cannot remember which but Chinese anyhow.
When testing something like this i tend to take half of my workshop with me and i made a temporary repair to the lip of the tank with thin CA, and baking powder and set it off with kicker this method makes a very tough fillet mix and it was fine for a field repair and stopped the leak.
So no more Chinese tanks back to Dubro, the stopper was a Dubro and was as good as new. I learned the hard way that Chinese gas stoppers don't work. I have had two fail, one had a senior moment and leaked all over the inside of my Model design Sea Fury and that melted the foam sandwich between reinforcing sections of the fuselage it made a real mess.
So be warned. Some of the Chinese gear we all use is very good but some is junk.
The thin CA and kicker i use are Hobby king and both are very good i have used them for years and i buy 30 bottles at a time and keep it in the bar fridge so it does not go off.
I am a builder not an ARF man so use a lot. The kicker you can buy in 8oz. bottles and again in the fridge but after use i always wash my hands as i hate to think what type of chemicals are in them, when spraying the kicker it go,s everywhere.
Back to the 6th flight.
I have learnt to hold right rudder on the take off roll and through most of the climb out as this keeps the left wing from dropping. this is peculiar to this model all my other large models i just use rudder only on the take off roll.
The take off is easy. It lifts off at half throttle and climbs out with ease, all the systems on the aircraft have worked flawlessly its me that's the problem.
After settling down i dropped the gear and went to half flaps and confirmed with Al. that i had high elevator rates.
I did some low and slow circuits flying 30 feet above the trees on the far ridge, and down wind
( not for the faint hearted) pulled full flaps and turning at our gate or the right hand far corner of our field with Al. yelling "slower and lower keep the nose down" the approach to the threshold of the strip was at 45 degrees down the hill to my right with a backdrop of bush and trees so perspective is difficult.
I arrived over the threshold more or less in the middle of the field turned and straightened the wings i thought i was too slow so gave it a blip on the throttle i missed my tree by a good distance and bingo it was flat 3 feet above the ground and looking good with a bit of throttle still on i cut the throttle a bit it dropped onto the field on its two wheels without even a bounce, i cut the throttle and the tail came down in a perfect text book landing.
So 6 flights for a rego it must be some sought of record.
I will fly it a few more times to get a good grip on the landing set up and then start the finish process at a guess 150 hours should see it reasonable.
The new sliding cockpit will wait until the last.
The aircraft wings are 6kg and the fuselage 10kg or just over 35 Pounds in old money it will weigh more when the finish is applied but still within reason.
The 3W85 with a cooking 26X10 prop. has 18kg. of thrust on the ground at about 6200 rpm or about 40 Pounds in old money.
The aircraft weighs about 35 Pounds so i have a better then one to one ratio of power over weight.
The high wing loading aircraft that i mostly fly, fly on the engine not the wing. Without the engine it drops like a brick.
I have successfully landed my 35 Pound P47 dead-stick see the video below but the odds are against you, you must have enough luck to be in the correct position in the air with enough hight when the engine dies.
So far with the Hurricane the engine has been flawless and kept running.
If you want an easy life go for a Tiger Moth or other low wing loaded large aircraft you have more wing so it has a lighter wing loading and land at a walking pace.
They are doddle to land and float when the engine dies, but i can do that, i like to do things that are hard and a challenge.
I am not sure what the wing loading is or "volume of lift" but it must be in the 50 to 60 oze. per sq. ft..
It fly,s and lands very well at this weight and has real presents in the air, but this aircraft takes no prisoners.and is the most difficult aircraft to land i have ever had and is a real challenge all round.
If you are not a 9 or 10 on the approach it will let you know and ends up bent at the end of the day.
I will take some shots and put them up here when it looks like a real 2C Hurricane.
I have a few broken props. so can make a nice 3 blade static prop.

Yippee.
Blackfingernail

April 20 2015 .

14 flights so far and only 2 good landings, but its still in one bit.
This is pushing me to my limits.
I am in the process of moving the wheels forward. to try and cure its love of worms
Adjusting retract angles can be tricky as they have to be really nailed down on heavy aircraft.
How i go about this is?.
I set the wing upside down on my work bench, level in all directions using a bubble.
Have the wheels out and drop a plum bob from the centre of the axle and mark where they are now on the wing.
Instead of making wooden wedges under the rear of the retract i use "Selleys Kneed it" its an epoxy putty available from Bunnings.
I cover the base of the retract in silver foil to stop the retract from sticking. Foil works better then cling film. I mix the putty and apply to the wing mount, there is about a 15 min. working time. I press the retract into the putty mix adjusting the forward rake and if needed the side angle as well, when it looks right drop a plum bob down and you can see how much further forward the wheels are. wait about five min. for the putty to go off a bit and carefully pull the retract out leaving a perfectly flat base for the mount at the new angle.
This putty has the consistency of plasticine and go,s off rock hard.
Also when the retract is on the putty, i push a smaller bolt through where the bolts or screws previously were. This gives you a hole to put your bolts or screws back in otherwise you may drill through the hard set putty at a different angle and end up with a double hole
My last flight was a little short and problematic.
I had been adjusting the tripple switches on my radio and the Expo. and left the ailerons on mid range for this last take off.
On this last flight i also tried a 27X10 prop to try and get the tick over down for the landings. The tick over came down to a nice 1500 and the top end was down to 5400.
With the 26X10 i had been using before it would sing or maybe shout to 6300.
Well it did not like the larger prop. On the roll out it pulled hard left due to the extra torque of the bigger prop.
I had started the roll out but quite close to the left of the runaway and when it passed me it was still pulling left i gave full right rudder but it kept drifting left by this time it was in the long grass on the side of the runaway and going fast but still not airspeed.
So i was in the DO DO it was heading on the ground toward the trees and bushes. I had two choices dump it and spread it over the long grass in small bits or prey i had flight speed and pull up.
I pulled up and it dropped the left wing when it was four feet of the deck.
Due to the large engine this aircraft has a tendency on take off to drop the left wing even if you have good ground speed, even on a good day it needs to have right rudder held throughout the climb out.
I held full right rudder and then gave it full right aileron but it was not happy and was looking for somewhere to land.
It found its landing spot 10 feet up a tree. So i now have two trees with my name on them.
My thoughts were "[email protected]@@@@ that's stuffed it that looked hard".
On reaching the perching spot the digital servo,s were complaining but they complain anyway so i ignored them.
It did look good and also still in one bit.
The tree had caught it perfectly, one retract was a bit screwiff and the Chinese paint stirrer was stuffed but good ridden,s to that anyhow and it has now joined the others in the Hurricane prop. graveyard. An hour in the workshop corrected the retract mount
.Sometimes the gods are with you.

Lessons learnt.
A. Use a 26X10
B. Use high rates on aileron for take off. Mid range for flight.
C. Start in the centre of the runway.
D. Don,t gun it from the start or it will pull left, Wait until the tail pops up and there is some air on the rudder then give it some welly.
E. Keep the roll out speed high before lift off.
F. Trees can be kind
G. Find a nice spot to repair my ego.
H. Think about taking up bowls.
Blackfingernail



May 2015 Up date, my Me109E DLE55 25 Pounds Custom retracts flys great an absolute pig to land due to the scale tail, just like the real one.
This aircraft was acquired crashed, rebuilt, refurbished, repainted and upgraded with gas engine retracts and modern electronics.
So far 41 flights. It Survived Cootamundra and Orange scale mettings
At least i can land this. Are there any Spitfires out there that need a war?.AL.?
Blackfingernail

ATTACHMENTSwho,s a clever boy then works with cropping the piccrop2.jpg (171 KiB) Viewed 14 timesAha the file was to big so its croppedcroppped pic.jpg (122.64 KiB) Viewed 14 times




Last edited by dubs1946; 06-21-2015 at 09:00 PM.
Old 08-04-2020, 02:34 AM
  #50  
orthobird
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: shreveport, LA
Posts: 788
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I am getting ready to maiden my top flite giant scale P51 racer.
I began the build in 2013, and 7 years later, she is almost ready.

I did do the CG test, and my CG is 5 mm forward of the recommended CG point.

I do have one major problem.
ANd I believe it to be a real big problem
My wing loading is at 60 ounces per square foot.

I have put a DA 100 inline twin on the nose, and I installed the rudder and elevator servos in the tail, and by doing this, it balances as I have mentioned, with no added weight. The two batteries are located in the rear aspect of the wing cradle area.




Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.