Bama

My Feedback: (18)

kmtranmd,
I am sorry to hear about your buddy's plane. It is good to hear that Hnagar 9 refunded him for it. I hope you have as much good luck with your P-40 as I have had with my planes from them.

smitty,
You are right, I am sure I would have a different outlook if I had a failure. I am sorry to hear that you are one of the unlucky ones. My remarks were for the great number of people making claims without ever having a problem. You are also right to say that it's better safe than sorry. I guess I have been very fortunate not to have any failures with any of the ones that I have assembled. I don't think that 120 has that much more power than the Saito 100, which is recommended, so I don't think that was the problem. You are probably right that there was a defect there. Good luck with your next one. Did H9 treat you right with the plane, or did you even try to get anything from them?

Alan

ROBERT101

here are some pics more comming.

ROBERT101

kmtranmd:
I have already flown this plane it fies verry well but I set my cg at 3 1/2 inch back I would rather a little nose than tail. a nose heavy plane flies good a tail heavy plane flies once.

kmtranmd

My Feedback: (71)

Robert:
I set my CG at 3" per instructions. But yours flew well at 3.5", so you technically got yours set up a little tail heavy??? I got my new Saito 100 run 30 min break in today. I'm still waiting for Oregon rain to stop so I can maiden my plane. I had a moment of weakness the other day, thinking about not showing up at my office and go flying instead because the sun was out.[:-]

ROBERT101

at 3 inch it was real tail heavy bad enough it would try to fall off my ballancer. so I added a trueturn spinner, weighted adapter and 2oz lead and it was alittle nose heavy at 3.5 inch and flew great.

seanychen

My Feedback: (4)

I got the Pro-Spin 3.5" 3-blade aluminum spinner. It weighs 5 oz, which is about how much most aluminum 3.5" spinners, including Tru-turn weigh, short of going to lightened backplate. So I guess with a YS 110 it should balance fine.

smitty9969

My Feedback: (7)

Bama,
That was also my thinking considering the magnum vs. saito power issue.. I didnt try to contact H9 because of its still a 120 and since I work in the middle east, sending mine back wouldnt be worth the trouble..
Just got the H9 P-40, so Im not one of the flyers bashing H9, I agree with most people that with an ARF you have to do alittle deviating, but I do same thing when I build from plans. So, on a personal note, I dont see the big fuss about doing mods. If its a price issue, on most arf vs. plans, the prices once everything brought is only about $50 bucks give or take.
Can someone help me out here?
Price a quality .60 size corsair kit. Then price all the support equipment it will take to build, ie fuel system, retracts, etc. I could be mistakin on the price difference
It was my own mistake for not beefing up the wing. Just got in a hurry because it is a nice looking model. But with the warhawk, i brought covering when i ordered the plane.

ROBERT101

mike:
this is alittle off topic but I understand you are head of design at horizon hobbies. is there any plans in the making for a 60 size zero in the near future?

MANFRED

My Feedback: (27)

That's what we need, another Zero on the market! Sheesh, can't these manufacturers model one of the other great Japanese warbids once in a while? How 'bout a 60 size Tony, Frank, Tojo or George? I would buy any one of these instantly. Adding another Zero to the market would be like adding another Corsair or Mustang to the already saturated ARF market, oh wait, they already did that!

mookie1

My Feedback: (5)

I know this is the wrong forum but I am converting my H9 P-40 to electric with a Hacker motor and Thunder Power Li-Po batteries. I had great success with the P-51 and I don't have to cut the killer cowl.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

Mookie , let me know if and when you post your results please

hy flyr

My Feedback: (27)

After putting a os91fx on my p-40 I noticed the engine mount holes were askew and the engine mounts weren't even, making the engine slightly cockeyed. Really bugs me. Anybody else have this problem?

Capt G

My Feedback: (8)

I noticed this too. A little right thrust built in is ok but mine had way too much. I added a couple washers to decrease the amount some. Finally got my Zero going good so I had a chance to make some progress on the P-40. Finished the cockpit today (had to make an instrument panel to replace the cheesy decal). Canopy is glued on and drying now. I was really surprised at how goo the retracts work. I just hooked 'em up and the locked up and down with no real adjustments at all. ran 'em about 15 cycles so far. Now just balance, fuel proof and panel lines and decals and we can see how she flys. Can't wait.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

Just want to take a second and say hi to everybody here in the war birds area. I'm getting ready to build the P-40 for a review and I have a quick question (well, one question now. maybe more later). Has anybody replaced the stock tail wheel assembly? I've been flying for 9 years and I've never liked tail wheels rods that are mounted into the wood of the rudder. I fly off a paved runway that is a little bit short which makes for fast landings sometimes. I like to have a tail wheel that is isolated by a spring when I start trying to control the plane on a fast landing.

If anybody has replaced the tail wheel, what did you replace it with??

Thanks in advance for any help.

kmtranmd

My Feedback: (71)

ARF companies always use cheesy tailwheels for even pricey birds. I always swap them out for the Sullivan tailwheels. They are built better and put less stress on your rudder. Well, I got my H9 P-40 retracts locked up and tilted forward 20 degrees, now wheels are right below the LE where they belong. If this bird flies well tomorrow, I will think about getting rid of the crappy stock retracts and go with the CJM rotating variety. Sierras are nicer but pricey for $250 a pair with nothing else. Robarts are only $140 but I hear they are not duable.[:-]

rc_for_me

My Feedback: (1)

Finished my H9 Warhawk last week and maidened it yesterday. It's a joy to fly. Very smooth and stable at all speeds.

Last night went over all of the linkages, connections, etc for tightness, as one should do after the first couple of flights.
Found that one retract would not lock in down position. Found that the factory installed bell crank hold down screw had backed nearly all the way out. Had to remove plastic wheel well covers and drill access hole to tighten screw. Did so on both sides.

Today I was flying it again with several club members observing. In mid flight on a shallow down line at about 1/3 throttle on my TT .91 4-stroker the port side horizontal stabilizer parted company.

Picked up the wreckage (totally destroyed). Inspected the root of the stabilizer and found it constructed of soft balsa with the grain running parallel to the fuselage.

Now, I've been building and flying for years. In my experience, I have no problem reinforcing where needed or when I expect to push a craft to it's limits. But when I spend $260 for a semi-scale Warbird that I intend on flying in a scale like manner, pieces should not come slinging off during a slow shallow dive.

Further more, I should not have to install flying wires, reinforce firewalls or any of sort. As long as I am within the manufacturers recommended setup, the thing should be ready to go out of the box.

My biggest question is...I have witnesses, pictures, and the failed part. Will Hanger 9 do right by me when I call this coming Monday?

seanychen

My Feedback: (4)

Well, I will add tail brace for sure. Either that, or rebuild the stab trailing edge w/ basswood or something along that line.

One draw back of CA hinge is that it poses resistance to deflections. Combine it with tail mounted servo, in which there is no flex to relieve the tension posed by the CA hinges, it is not good for softly constructed balsa stab.

If you see stabilizer getting deflected during elevator movement, it's a sign that you are giving the system more input than it wants to take.

Regardless, it's a design error on H9's part. They are known to replace kits due to their design failure.

rc_for_me

My Feedback: (1)

I guess that's my point. Why should we have to add tail braces? Why should we have to reinforce firewalls. I understand where you are coming from and have made such modifications many times. If I'm building and flying a 3-D or aerobatic aircraft, then reinforcement certainly makes sense for the loads it will be subject to.

This is a warbird, hows it going to look with flying wires? How's it going to look with reinforcing stock at the stab root? If they recommended putting such on the craft, the parts should have been included. I just wanted to build and fly the plane right out of the box.

All they needed to do was build the stab properly. Use some hard balsa or perhaps some basswood as seanychen suggests. Maybe even a little carbon fiber would be in order...

But no matter what it needed, it should have been done by Hanger 9. Not left up to me to determine the need and subsequent effort to apply.

LDM

My Feedback: (15)

Jeff are you saying the total plane was detroyed ? If so first off I want to say sorry about that secondly , get ready !!! You will either get a ton of so called experts tell you that you should have virtully put this plane thru an x-ray machine and found that problem before your flight . For me , I cant agree with you more , it should have been built correctly and in another post I asked the question "how many of these companies are being run by modelers /enginers and how many are just importers with no experience .
I was going to buy this plane , now its a wait and see and for your sake I really hope the make good on the problem .
Sincerly
LDM

seanychen

My Feedback: (4)

I hope you get a new P40 from H9. Just send them the picture of the broken tail.

CMP warbirds have plug-in stabs w/ alum tubing and counter-rotation pin. This design is not possible unless you have an airfoiled stab. LDM, I think you should go for the CMP P40. MY CMP Zero 120 hasn't had any tail problem. I did rip the retract mount, cleanly though, and I just added doubler everywhere I can.

As for me, I was originally considering modifying the stab to enlarge elevator and add counter-balance. Now it seems like a mod is a must. Let's see if LHS will sell me 2 ft of brown Ultracote.

As for the tail brace, it only looks as wrong as the tail-mounted servos, now that I think about it...

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

I was considering sheeting just the bottom of the stab with 1/64 ply so I didn't disturb the airflow much (if any ) nor the camo on top...

timothy thompson

My Feedback: (1)

what kind of maneuvers were being done prior to the failure lots of snaps and spins or not. how big was the engine?? 90fs enough

rc_for_me

My Feedback: (1)

There were no spins, no snaps, no aerobatics of any kind. A couple of big loops and a few aileron rolls. With all of my planes especially the large scale, I always get off the throttle on down lines. I just bought this thing fully intending on flying it in a scale maner. I have plenty of other planes for tearing holes in the sky.

It was powered by a Thunder Tiger .91 four stroke with a 12x8 3-blade master airscrew. Well within mfg recommendations.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

I've got a real quick question for the group here. I'm getting ready to do the Hanger 9 P-40 with a Saito 100 in it. I see in all the ads and a lot of pictures here that people are using a red spinner with a 3 blade prop, and have also seen a red spinner with a 2 blade APC prop. Couple of questions.

What manufacturer spinner is every body using for the red spinner that seems to have an aluminum backplate?

What prop combinations is everybody using on this motor/plane? 2 blade? 3 blade?

thanks in advance.

rc_for_me

My Feedback: (1)

I used a red CBA Tatone 3 1/2" P-51 spinner that I picked up at Tower Hobbies. It comes blank and was easy to carve the slots for my Master Airscrew 12x8 3-blade.