Atom Ant

I HAD a Hangar 9 P-51D. It was my first warbird. I had about five successfull flights. I was using the stock mechanical retracts and was having some problems with flex and calapsing gear, so on the sixth flight I was trying to be real easy on the gear. I was coming in slow and everything was perfect. All of the sudden I noticed the wing was dipping (read stalling) on one side. I immediately increased the throttle to full and the plane climbed out on its own. So, i decided to try it again, the wing started to stall agaiin. This time I increased the throttle, but it wasn't responding as well so I added some (very little) up elevator. The plane rolled, the tail went up near vertical and the plane was reduced to spare parts. The point is that when my wing stalled and up elevator was added the tail followed the wing. I believe, becuase of the lack of air speed, the tail controls had no authority, therefore it just followed the wing. I am building a new Hangar 9 P-51D, however it will be equiped with SpringAir retracts prior to flight. The retracts cost ($235 complete) more then the plane ($205). You have a choice weather to fly, but landing is not optional. Solid landings are a must on a warbird.

SpitfireMKI

My Feedback: (2)

After further thought and calming down after that rudder comment [8D]

I've test flown at least a hundred different types at our field for the chaps and have only had a couple that were way off on balance. So I don't have gobs of time with tail heavy birds.

The point being, the characteristics of a tail heavy plane that I have experienced is that the tail doesn't come up easy, and in this case it was up. I once tested a waco that when I went to let the tail up with the elevator to 'fly' it and proceed with my t/o roll, it just jumped off the runway. With careful throttle input and gobs of......rudder, I was able to save it. I suppose it is possible that the T6 was a tad tail heavy and pilot inexperience contributed to the crash.

I would say the major cause based on all the evidence, points to pilot error, failing to allow the aircraft to gain enough airspeed to maintain level flight.

Regardless of trim and how far out it is, you the pilot should be able to overcome this with the sticks. Get the plane to a good altitude and then give the trims a workout. I just finished a test flight of a plane at work and it had several problems, which we found out as soon as I broke ground, first being it was nose heavy, second it needed up thrust and third the tail was changing incidence with airspeed changes. First issue was correct the pitch as best I could, then evaluate the rest of the controls. Instead of rushing to land (No major parts fell off !) , I flew on until I had a feel for it and knew what to expect when I came into land. I ended up with no trim left on the elevator and had to fly it in holding back hard on the stick. Always be on the ready !

I had a funtana 90 and I could take it punch the throttle and yank the elevator, slap the rudder on the ground and jump off into the air. The plane happily flying on it's way. It was a no brainer, no thought, no skill. I even, and this is the honest truth, set it up over the threshold and said "Look guys no hands" and allowed it to land itself in a three pointer, fantastic !

Many new pilots get use to a plane like this and develop bad habits and if they have never flown a plane that requires you to actually be aware of airspeed, will almost always toast a plane that does.

Get a cub man ! It will really help.

S1

Jetjockey_3

My Feedback: (8)

2SLOW,

Listen to what Spitfire and Gremlin Castle are saying!!!! I have flown that airplane after flying several other warbirds of all sizes. I have flown all the TF Gold Edition warbirds and I have flown several giant scale warbirds. 88" Spitfire, 85" Corsair, 80" Bearcat, 90" Mustang, 80" P47, 88" Seafury and 108" Mosquito. Rudder is critical, both on the ground and in the air. I also fly full-size aircraft too.

The key is to get the plane to flying speed while still on the ground. Your intention on take off is to keep the wings level, the plane heading STRAIGHT and the climb out gentle.

One thing that I find interesting in your discription is the fact that you said the plane was drifting RIGHT. Usually a plane will drift LEFT due to the "P Factor". This is caused by the torque of the engine putting more force on the left wheel while on the ground. And the gyroscopic effect of the spinning prop when you are in the air. One thing I would check is whether or not your tail was square to the fuse and wing. I purchased a plane off of a fellow member at my club who kept crashing it on take-off. When I got it home the Fin was square to the Stab, but the whole assembly was off relative to the wing and fuse. If your Stab wasn't square with your wing, it could cause the roll effect that you experienced when you applied elevator.

My two cents, ... Canadian at that, so it is worth less .

ALWAYS, ALWAYS use your Rudder! Use it whenever you use your Ailerons! Use it whenever you apply up elevator! Use it to take off! Use it to land! I have a video with Jeff Ethel flying the P40. He states, "... the difference between a warbird pilot and a GOOD warbird pilot is how busy his feet are." (on the rudder pedals).

SpitfireMKI

My Feedback: (2)

Jetjock, your canadian cash is worth plenty in this case.

Here is some advice I got early on, "Fly the plane regardless of what it's ' supposed ' to do"

My buddy also told me to take my cub and throw it out of trim, then fly it start to finish. That way you get use to flying a plane that does not want to fly properly. Once you do this, you will see that you can handle most problems with ease.

BTW: Jeff Ethell was a heck of a pilot and a hell of a nice guy, met him once at the Smithsonian, and yeah, my Ziroli Kittyhawk keeps my feet errrrr, thumb working !

S1

2slow2matter

My Feedback: (1)

scalecraft.
The plane weighed 9.5 pounds the night before maiden. Right before Maiden I threw 6 oz of lead in the nose for good measure--this made it balance perfectly at the listed CG. So, I'm guessing the plane weighed about 10 lbs on takeoff. After the rebuild, and by moving the CG up 1/2 inch as suggested, it will probably be pushing 10.5 lbs, which may very well bring about a whole new set of problems.

Spitfire,
while I appreciate your apparent expertise with model warbirds, I never once claimed the accident was anything other than my fault. I never blamed it on anything other than inexperience. Both of your posts have harshly pointed this obvious factor out, and it's really getting a little old. I also appreciate your advice about getting a cub, and I may end up with a 40 sized cub, I don't know. Would this do the trick, or would I need a 60 sized cub? I really don't want to spend a whole lot of money on a plane that I actually don't want. I have all of the stuff to go into a 40 sized sitting around, so that would be no big deal. A 60 sized, however, would involve me buying a new engine, which I really don't want to do right now, since I'm about to buy one for an existing model in the next couple of weeks (and I'm not made of money). So, if you think a .40 sized cub would do the trick, then I'll get one and practice on it until the T-6 gets rebuilt. I even have a saito .56 that would go perfect on a .40 sized cub. What do you say?
thanks....

timothy thompson

My Feedback: (1)

WHAT! RUDDER IS PRIMARY STICK TO TRAINERS PLEASE

captjack

My Feedback: (3)

2slow,
may i offer i few suggestions,I not only fly warbirds but also multi-engine ala stafford b-24..check out the twin engine forum post by twinman on proper flight techniques.these apply to single engine planes as much as multi engine planes but multi engines it is more critical.one thing that I think will help you out is a gryo on the rudder,alot of post tell how to install a cheap gyro to help tracking and stall recocovery for inexperienced pilots.cost is less than $40.oocould save your plane the next time.one thing I remember from my building jemco p-47 was the flight recommendations to purchase a midwest chipmunk[foam arf from the 70's] and add weight till the wing loading was about 30 ox/sq ft.this was a .40 size plane.then practice landings and take off with it before flying the p-47.obviously you fly the plane before adding all rthe weight and see how different it handles as the weight is gradually increased..one thing i have learned is if i see a wing drop is lower the nose first,add power,level wings with rudder not airlerons.using the rudder will help lower the nose so you can ease off the elevator.ever fly a 3 channel plane?with the application of rudder the nose will drop and the wings will bank,to keep from losing altitude in a turn with 3 channels sometimes you apply up elevator to point the nose up before apply rudder for the turn..anyway check out the twin engine forum and do a searc on gyro's they are not just for heli's anymore and could help you out.

timothy thompson

My Feedback: (1)

hey sorry for the comment. a cub is a great warbird trainer. ailerons are on the tips of the wing(dont get a semiscale strip setup. The short coupling will make takeoffs a challenge. IN THE AIR SHES A *****CAT. build light and learn the t-6 is a very bad choice and the lhs should have told you i say shame on them!!!

hellcat56

My Feedback: (21)

Lets dont knock all T-6< I love mine a Zirolli I've had it for about 5 years, hundreds of flight,
it is a *****cat on take off, landings without a bounce will make a pilot out of you, but in the air it is great,
And like all heavy metal , You have to use rudder or it will turn into an instant rekitting project.

timothy thompson

My Feedback: (1)

he was using it as a first warbird. it is a nice plane

captjack

My Feedback: (3)

helcat56,
what engine are you using in the zirolli t-6,I am building one and have a g-62 and robart retracts,had visions of t-6 racing but am slowing down in old age.thanks.

the-plumber

Ditto, but learn to nail take off and landing in cross-winds before heading for the T-6.

I dunno so much about doin' it in yer sleep, though . . .
<g>

hellcat56

My Feedback: (21)

I must have gotten the only T 6 in the world that is great, I would recommend it for a first scale plane, it is stable has a giant wing, I have a vortek bomb release and I have loaded mine down with giant drop tanks, bombs anything I can hook under there. The plane handles it with ease. I have a G 62 with robart retracts --both are bullet proof and never gives me a problem. I usually fly in a scale manner at about 3/4 throttle. I like to do take off runs the length of the runway-this thing tracks straight as an arrow-with RUDDER inputs.
Full flaps down -all three of them- landing lights come on when the flaps go down landing are EASY over the years I have learned to suck up the flaps as soon as the wheels touch this kills the lift and limits the bounce.
I like this plane-I had a smaller one many years ago 60 in wing and loved it to
I tell the guys around here who want their first warbird to get a T 6 any size and start there.
My paint scheme is French Air Force during the Algerian War, Six Rocket launchers, Drop Tank, Four under wing Cannons in two pods.
Great Plane
Lawrence

JAkridge

2Slow,
I went from a Zagi to a H-9 60 P-51, that was my learning curve on RC Planes after 30 years away, then a TF AT-6. Wow what a differance between the 2 Warbirds. The AT-6 was a handfull with my limited experiance. I damm near planted it several times on TO and LD. All due to it coming off way to early, and stalling on landing. The thing I learned if anything, was keep it on the ground tell Max. Q, and fly the damm thing all the way to touch down. And every Warbird I have had is the same way.

Good Luck on the rebuild, And give her Hell the next go around, you'll be fine.

SpitfireMKI

My Feedback: (2)

2slow- You are the one who asked what you did wrong. I do not think I indicated you were blaming anything else but yourself. Candy coated answers is not the way I instruct. If you messed up, you messed up. Planes do not have feelings only pilots. I may be harsh (Even apoligized for it) and you may think of me as an a - hole, but I'll bet you rememeber my advice the next time you fly, especially when you see that it works.

Get that cub, Sig makes a great kit. I second the scale aileron types, the strips will allow you to get away with things. The 56 would be perfect in the 40 sizer.

I'm providing advanced instruction to a friend right now who's heading into warbirds. He learned to fly on a Alpha 60, great trainer, wants rudder inputs for coordinated flight, he then advanced to a TF elder, then got a cub, went through some tough times but got the hang of it. He's now working with a H9 PT-19 gasser and doing wonderful. We just spoke last night and he mentioned how hard the cub was and how easy the PT was. The PT requires all the skills the cub does, the cub taught him well. He needs to stick with the cub and PT for the rest of the year and I think he'll be ready to handle a fighter type or his midwest T-6.

One thing at a time !


hellcat, great harvard !

I do disagree with you though, lousy first scale plane.

You have to ask yourself "When I was just starting off, could I have handled this plane and kept it in one piece ?"

Even you mention the take-off swings and bouncy landings. The other thing to remember is that your bird is very big, bigger birds always fly better, the TF fits into that squirrely plane size.


I think, and it's just my opinion, that all pilots should have a cub as a second plane. That bird makes a pilot out of you more than any other plane I can think of. Remember, anyone can stooge around with a cub in uncoordinated flight, to fly it right you need to work all of those controls. After your fingers do what your eyes tell you, then you drop down to a low wing and heavier loadings. Skies the limit !

S1

2slow2matter

My Feedback: (1)

Would either one of these two cubs be ok? Neither one seems to have strip ailerons. I really like the GP model, but it is covered in fabric, and I'm unexperienced in fabric coverings. Therefore, any dings and dents will be tough for me to fix, or will it? The Thunder tiger version is covered in ultracote, so that would be no problem. All I really need is for someone to tell me that the fabric wouldn't be that hard to repair (if need be) and I'd order the great planes one!
BTW, I need to go with ARF because of time constraints. After July, I won't get to fly again until winter because of my job (football coach). I will have absolutely no time at all--either weekdays or weekends--to fly. The only evenings I have available during season is Sat. evening--from 2:00 on when I get off. However, I use that evening as family time, so no flying. Therefore, the need for an arf so that I can get as much flying time as possible in the next two months!
Thanks for the help.
The cubs:
[link=http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXUJ23&P=ML]Cub 1[/link]
[link=http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXNX86&P=ML]cub 2[/link]

SpitfireMKI

My Feedback: (2)

Fabric is iron on just like mono/ultra cote, you just need to make sure you get the grain running in the same direction otherwise it will look off in shade.

Either plane would be perfect.

S1

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

To follow is an artical I wrote for a local club on the GP Cub.


My children often want to fly with dad a couple of times a year, many times this included a half dozen friends that wanted to try
model flying. I don't fly high wing models so I needed to get something that would be acceptable. After trying a number of ARF's that did
not fit the bill, because of weight, shelf paper covering, poor flight characteristics, etc.. With the easy availability of ARF Cubs they were
the natural choice for this kind of dutie. I was very intrigued when Great Planes (GP) introduced there ARF giant scale Cub. But Hanger 9
also had a ARF Cub of the same size, so after downloading the construction pamphlets, printing them out and pouring over both until I
finally decided that the GP Cub being covered with 21st Century fabric (fabric being the key) won my vote. I purchased mine from the
local hobby shop G J's hobbies in Vestal, NY.

I'm not one to tell you how the box was packed (nothing came broken) or how it built (I had parts left over, screws and such). All
that stuff has been covered by many others, and the part of real interest to me is how does it fly and will it last! Will it fly reliably in all
kinds of weather; Wind (of course), cold, hot and in transition from cold to hot and visa versa, will it survive the test of time. The test of
time to this point being the most difficult test for an ARF, usually after half a season they get loose or the covering starts to crack, etc.. I
expected that some work would be required to keep it going and looking good. But did not want to get into replacing firewall, landing
gear mounts and radio installations. When I buy an ARF I expect that stuff to be set it and forget it. Sadly, till this kit that was not the
case. But the GP Cub stood the test of time, while getting the worst duty there is in my hanger, it needed some work but nothing major.

In its first year the Cub was used to give introduction flights to people that were interested in giving R/C a try. Pretty rough duty for
any plane, with full power dives to full elevator pull ups both right side up and inverted pullouts. You must remember before you learned
power management! It took all the punishment of ignorance and just kept going. I fly mode 1 and it quickly became obvious that my
mode was the wrong one for the trainer box. All my helpers were mode 2, thus I switched the buddy box to mode 2. At that point, Bill
Tozer became the buddy box trim pilot. He liked the cub so much that he purchased one for himself.

As the flights began to mount on Bill's Cub it dawned on me that he was making some of the same changes to his Cub that I had
made on mine. The idea for this article was born! So to following are the changes that we made to our Cubs and why. It is our hope that
this information will help others to increase the longevity of their GP Cub by knowing how to fix common problems they may encounter.

I have over 200 flights on the model and Bill's has verified these findings with his Cub. In all fairness to the kit I must say that I am
not a slow and steady kind a guy, I like to be going mach 2 with my hair on fire low enough to see the top of the wing as it passes by
me. I tell you this because that means that when I go to the field this plane gets the worst treatment, and always gets the call if the
weather is to bad for my other, more dear to my heart models. As a result I can vouch for the strength and stability of the model, it has
been landed with a negative ground speed on a couple of occasions. It has also given 92 of the neighbors their first taste of flying models,
without skipping a beat. We all know what putting a rookie behind the sticks can do to a model, but this one got nothing but first flights.

From experience I've learned that those fake engines that we hang off the cowl never stay on, some where between flight 50 and
flight 300 they always fall off. So I left them off, its all a matter of interpretation anyhow and I like the clean look. Under the cowl I
mounted an old reliable ASP .80 4 cycle for power and it is a little big but I may fly off water some day so that would be just about right. I
mounted the engine inverted to keep the cowl sides clean, I don't know if an actual cub existed like that but I like the look. Bill on the
other hand decided to mount the dummy engine head on his cub with the head of his Saito .80 sticking out of the cowl on the other side.
Bill also replaced the stock fuel tank that came with the kit with a 14oz.. Mine will fly 12 min., for a powered landing and 14 min., to a
dead stick with the stock tank at rooky pilot flight speeds. But Bill's will fly 20 min. with plenty of fuel left on board at 1/3 throttle. We
both fly at reduced throttle for most of the flight, his Saito turns a 14x6 and my ASP turns a 13x6( I tried a 14x6 but there was not
enough engine for it). Mine will fly with the same economy as Bills if I fly between 4 and 6 clicks (less than his ¼ throttle).

The first change we both made to the plane is install the second landing gear wire. When we get to the field we fly! Sometimes the
wind will challenge us with a crosswind landings which require an approach with the up wind wing low, having to set it down on a single
wheel and hold it there until all the flying speed is gone. Having to do this, that one wheel needs to be rigid and its alignment must not
change if it hits the runway a little harder than preferred. That second wire insures that to be the case because it does not allow the main
wire to bend back.

The second wire (1/8in. dia. Cold rolled steel) was bent to fit behind the hinges for the landing gear pants and then attached to the
first main wire just in front of the wheel axle, wrapped with copper wire then soldered. Extra landing gear straps were used to hold the
second wire in place right over the covering, the cabin floor is light ply with hard wood in the corners which is acceptable for bearing the
loads this wire will see. And the screws where taped into the mounting block for the landing gear pants hinges and struts. (See photo
20F02-3-18.jpg, 22F02-3-18.jpg, 19F02-3-18.jpg)

The kit comes with rubber bands to hold the axle end of the landing gear pants to the landing gear wire. Having an inverted engine I
had quite a bit of exhaust hitting the landing gear pants and would go through rubber bands quickly. Bill came up with the idea to use
nylon tie wraps there and the problem of having to replace those rubber bands regularly was solved.

When I had 22 flights on the model the EZ hinge that held the strut to the fuselage broke. I repaired it with another EZ hinge and
the one on the other side later broke at 42 flights. At which point I decided to go with out them until I figured out how to fix this correctly.
I had glassed the wing center section while in the initial build. I used 2 inch wide 6 oz. Glass and recovered the center section with a role
of 21st Century fabric I bought with the kit. Bill's EZ hinge on the strut broke at 22 flights also, and 48 flights.

While Bill was building his GP Cub he pointed out to me that the instructions state that the model should not be flown without the
struts. I had missed that while building mine so I reattached the struts and soon after another of the EZ hinges broke and they came off
until a better method of attachment could be found. Then I read of using coke bottle pieces to replace the EZ hinges so I pulled all of the
EZ hinges and replaced them with plastic cut from a Dr. Pepper bottle (it was a bit flatter than coke) and put a bolt through it. The first
flight with the newly refurbished struts I forced the screws into the same holes I had drilled for it, I'm a war bird jockey so stop laughing.
Well you guessed it, the model was all out of trim. I realized that I had warped the wing when I forced the struts into the same holes right
after it veered left on liftoff. But god watches out for fools and mode 1 pilots and I got it back down, took the struts off and everything
was straight again. To this point I had contended that the struts where just for looks because the mounts in the wing were attached to
balsa ribs. So after re-drilling the fuse strut mounting holes everything was back to normal and the struts seam to be holding up nicely
now. They have about 125 flights without a failior.

Bill added a pull-pull control on the rudder and ran a separate servo to each elevator because that is Standard Tozer Operating
Procedure (STOP) for giant scale planes (see pictures 8 & 9). I however hooked things up as recommended in the owners manual
connecting the two elevator pushrods close to the servo. I also used S148 servos as the flight envelope (stall 20 mph, Max level speed 65
mph, max. Dive speed 90 mph) for this model is well below what would stall those servos. I used a 800 mah battery pack figuring to field
fast charge every four flights if it sees that many in a day. Bill used a 1300 mah pack to eliminate all that running around.

We have to work for a living so it is a common occurrence for us to leave our planes in the car while working and it did not take
long for us to see pulled seams. At first I would pull them back and re-tack them but soon that was no longer possible. After the last
re-tack things were beginning to look pretty shabby so something had to be done. I did not want to recover the plane because of the cost
and the time it would take, so we had that extra 21 century film, and I picked up a pair of pinking shears at a garage sale years ago (
you can probably find a pair at the local fabric store). You guest it, we covered the edges of our models with pinking tape and it looks
pretty good if I do say so myself. Mine has spent four summers in the van and none of the pinked seams have shown any signs of pulling
or delaminating. Now I think it will last.

When adding pinking it is important to decide how far you are going to go. I just covered the seams and now wish I had done the
full job. A full size has two sizes of pinking a smaller width, we used 1/2", for strenghening internal surfaces like Ribs, and longerons. A
larger width that is used to double those areas where the fabric is seamed, We used 3/4". In places where it would not be obvious I
increased the width to 1", like the wing leading edge, or the bottom of the fuse. The pinking shears I had were only about 6" long which
left us with a cutting surface of about 4" because the ends were prone to not cutting the fabric and deforming it. I also Had problems
cutting in streight lines and keeping a consistent width, though we did finally solve those problems with lines drawn on the clear
seperation paper on the back of the covering. I used a lot of the pinking that was cut before the lining process and had no real problems
aplying the pinking tape in streight lines. But Bills was much nicer with the line cut pinking. How much pinking you care to use is up to
you, but remember that the smaller pinking is applied first over ribs and logerons then the larger is applied over that to tie all the ends
down on the LE, TE, fuse corners, etc..( see pic 50F02-5-17.jpg)

The plane flies like a Cub should with a stall speed of around 20 mph, a maximum level speed under power of 60-65 mph (ours are
over powered and with correct power it would probably be closer to 55-60), and a dive speed with full power of about 70-80 mph. It will
do all the maneuvers you expect and it's a great deal of fun to try to imitate the full scale with the engine cutting out during inverted
portions of maneuvers and diving for speed prior to the start of a maneuver. I just need to get my War Bird mind to account for that
diving while setting up a maneuver. Normal level flight can be sustained with three or four clicks of throttle on the straight portions of the
pattern and 5 clicks in the turns. Takeoffs are also interesting, I pin the tail for the beginning of the roll out then relax the elevator to
about a ¼ up once the plane starts moving. It hopes off rather quickly (three point takeoff). Using the rise to the mains then liftoff
method can also be used but one has to be careful with the amount of rudder added. Landings can be floated in, or dove to the runway at
a low throttle setting. I was particularly happy with the ability to dive to the runway without picking up to much speed to land. Even after
a long throttled back dive to the end of the runway it does not build up energy, which means that a slip is not required. Mine has flown in
the calm of the afternoon when shadows were to long for my War Birds, or to give people that come to the field to watch a chance to try
the hobby, or in 30+ mph wind when the rest of the sport fliers would not fly their planes. All in all it is a very good flying and versatile
purpose this model has filled for me.

We quite often have impromptu three point spot landing contests at the field and this model can holed its own. It requires alittle
throttle as I begin the flair to keep it flying long enough to get the tail down. But I've competed against upto 1/3 scale Cubs and we all
had fun. And thats what really counts! I've never seen any bad habits weather in the design or from wear and I have given this model
every opportunity too. The next modification I plan to try is the addition of floats, but that will have to wait for now.

Big_Bird

My Feedback: (1)

paladin, I don't see where this thread has degraded so much. Maybe it has degraded in your mind because some people have not agreed with you.

I fly a heavy Ziroli Corsair with a Brison 5.8 in the nose. Yes, it is overpowered but I love it that way. I ALWAYS use the rudder for directional control on take off and landing and NEVER use the ailerons for directional control. Upon take off this past weekend at a big bird flyin at Waco Texas a side gust of wind lifted the right wing. I had plenty of speed up at the time and used the ailerons along with a little right rudder to settle the plane back to the intended flight path. No problems the rest of the flight.

Rudder management is very important on warbirds. On the first landing attempt at Waco I got a little bounce and decided to go around. I did this by carefully easing the power on and maintaining directional control with the rudder. Never, never slam the power on, on a warbird. Heavy warbirds are not hard to fly, just a bit different from your average sport plane.

Ken

2slow2matter

My Feedback: (1)

Ken,
Joe (paladin) has been helping me quite a bit through this process, as have many other people. He has e-mailed me extensively, and I think his never use rudder comment has been taken slightly out of context, when you consider the things we've discussed off-forum. Joe knows the importance of rudder control and use in warbirds, as well as any other plane. His concern was that I was trying to overcontrol the plane on the ground with rudder, causing a sudden change in attitude, which could lead to a snap and crash. My TF T-6, just like Joe's, required no rudder input to maintain course on the runway. Therefore, what Joe was trying to tell me was to just let the plane roll and do it's thing until it's ready to fly. Don't hammer the rudder unnecessarily close to the ground, or the nose will drop. Something to that effect. Of course, I think we all agree that rudder is a necessity close to the ground, and close to stall speeds. I know as well as everyone else that using opposite aileron to correct a stalled wing will only worsen matters. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Now, about your bird. Would you agree that flying an overpowered bird is a bit different from flying one that is more scale powered? Tendencies to snap can dissappeaer in a hurry with enough prop thrust. JMO. If I'd had 40or more CC's in the cowl last Friday, I probably wouldn't have been here talking about this today. Anyway, it sounds like you know what you're talking about, and I'm just beginning into warbirds, so I certainly won't try to lecture anyone.

dragoonpvw

My Feedback: (7)

Were you able to check the cg just to make sure it was not nose heavy, a nose heavy plane with too much up trim could fly just exactly as you described. Also as F4u says an incidence problem or warp is a contender too. I think paladins comment was taken in context by everyone who commented on it, I have honestly never heard any decent flier advise against using rudder, now that is a recipe for disaster and blthely talking about lift vectoring does nothing to disguise a lack of control coordination. Control coordination is essential, especially close to the ground.
Good Luck
Paul

Big_Bird

My Feedback: (1)

2slow, I really wasn't picking on Joe but in my own way was trying to point out that just because there is a difference of opinion, this doesn't mean that the thread has degraded. Enough about that.

Back to the rudder stuff. Slamming the rudder around on takeoff is a disaster waiting to happen. When I'm flying the Corsair I rarely use more than 10% of the rudder travel for takeoff. However, I'm always ready to use more if needed. I let the plane tell me how much it needs. What can really feel awkward is taking off with a cross wind from the right and needing a little left rudder.

As far as an overpowered warbird being able to get you out of trouble, I can think of a few times when over power coupled with poor throttle management can really get you into trouble. An underpowered warbird can be pretty tricky though.

I see you are from Sulphur Springs. Gus Hudson is also and I saw him down at Waco this weekend. If you don't know him, look him up. He has a wealth of R/C knowledge.

Good Luck,
Ken

2slow2matter

My Feedback: (1)

I've met Gus before. He's a neat guy. He is a member of our club, but rarely comes out because of what he flies. He mostly goes to a club with a hard surface tarmac. I sure like watching him fly, though! We have a few guys in our club with a wealth of knowledge, but none of them fly "warbirds." (although some are plenty capable!)

SpitfireMKI

My Feedback: (2)

"Step on the ball boy, step on the ball, keep it centered !"

S1

wheels4009

2SLOW...sorry to hear about the loss. I am somewhat of a novice with Warbirds (will be building AT-6 for a winter project)
and wanting to get more stick time, before attempting actual flight......but I do have a question......I hear alot about flaps, pro and
con......would flaps say with just a litte 10% or so make sense on this aircratt ????

Just wondering if it would help with take off as well as landing ???