i am running an ASP 180 and an 18*6 prop however I do wonder if I should go with a 18*8 prop due to the big spinner?

Ram44

Also take into consideration the strut compressing a bit on landing.

If you fly this weekend, good luck and remember to always check the basics before flight. CG, ailerons, batt,ect,ect.............ect.

Steve

Actually I love Fridays over here, its now 11:45 am and I have finished work for the week (40 hrs) and have just rushed down the garage with a new air pump to try out the retracts... very cool as this is my first pneumatic set they work a treat!

. Yeah, I think we'll just run the engine with this prop and we'll fly with the 18-8 I just bought. [8D]. I'll keep you posted. I also against my desire bought the williams bros wheels...Something else to do to this bird.. Again we wait

Finished the '109...............
Time to go flying..................

Cant wait to hear the report..

Looks great, WWIIP38 !

well there has to be some things bad with this kit.... here are some I found tonight........ Pushrods to the elevator and rudder...........WHAT A JUNK SETUP I have used split pushrods before and they have worked ok but are never the best idea, and look at the bends they suggest on the instructions! I know some of you have modded this setup.... now I know why! also who else found the tail ball link very sloppy? I had to use a spare rocket city link from my heli parts

What does the big spinner have to do with choosing between a 18-6 or an 18-8 prop? For a maiden flight you may want as much thrust as you can get, that would be the 18-6. My OS 1.60 likes a 17-8 on my Ki-61, but I'm afraid it will rev a bit high on this plane that should be quite a bit faster. I'll run a 17-8 for maiden, but will likely run a 17-10 in the end. Even a 17" prop has plenty of blade area outside the spinner, not an issue.

On those elevator push rods, I may use the Y set up but I will but a connector between the elevator halves to stiffen things up a bit. I have not got to that part yet so I'm still looking into what I will do.

The suspense is killing me !!

Before your final setup, slide some carbon rods over the 256 rods to stiffen them up. Works great and will kill the flex!! Also, look inside the fuse, there are two formers you can use to support your pushrods from bowing.

thats a very good idea Ramstein44 but the tracking of the rods at the Y is not a straight run and has to bend to get from the fuselage to the elevator halves, I put it aside last night to think about the whole setup and i will have another look this morning SCALECRAFT seems to have a very good set up but I dont think this can be done after the elevator has been installed I am going to think about some methods like two servos, golden rods, push pull and see what I come up with....

Ramstein, thanks for the additional pictures. Hope all goes well this weekend, give us a report !

Dick

Looks good !

You cant judge a cmp by its rods/horns ect , for the money I never ever use there set up unless I am totally surprised by the quality of the rods/horns and that has not happened .
I love the planes , typicall use a carbon rod , then a wood dowell in the end , cut , then I scribe a line for a medal pushrod in the dowel , drill a hole at the end of the scribe line , make a 90 degree bend in the medal pushrod .
So picture this you have a medal push rod , reccessed in the wood dowl that has a 90 degree bend incerted in the hold you drilled in the dowl .
THis then slides into the carbon rod with expozy and I seal then entire thing with one light bandaid size piece of fiberglass , you get a perfact solid light weight rod with adjsutable 4-40 ends

Sorry if this is a silly question.

I am trying to figure out the movement of the inner combined surfaces according to the orientation of the servo mounts.

The hinges on my plane are not glued in place yet, so I cannot just hook up and try.

The ailerons and flaps seem to move correctly when connected with a Y-harness. However, do you need a mixer for the inner combined surfaces?

Thanks,
Helge.

HW50

Please be more specific (exact) about which control surfaces and what the you combining them.

Steve

The yellow arrows show the control surfaces I mean. I am sorry for not showing my own plane, since all the surfaces are removed, preparing for glueing the hinges.

I wonder if the arrowed surfaces can be controlled by using a simple Y-harness on one channel on the RX to operate both servos, or if mixing two channels is necessary.

By just looking at the arrangement, I found that mixing two channels is the answer, or perhaps a servo reverser on one of the servos. But again, I wonder.

Thanks,
Helge.

Yes it can be done. Many ways to configure it. Y connector may work. Just look at the servo horn positions when activated. And connect accordingly, if the geometry is correct.

Try it.

I can tell you that with the I radios have, JR 10sxII/8103/9303,ect or something like that, I can do it if I take the time to read the booklet. The control combinations are almost unlimited. Y connector makes it even more versatile.

Me personally, I would avoid the radiator flap (top one) in the up position when using the flaps to land, until I see what the flap/flaps alone do.

Hope this helps.

Steve

I wan concerned the spinner may reduce the prop thrust..... guess i am wrong?

You do realise both surfaces are controlled by one servo? each side? the set up is per wing 3 servos two of them are hooked up with Y leads and the aileron is with an extension lead I used 1 24" extension for the aieleron 1 24" Y for the flaps and one 12" Y for the brakes, the brake uses a T servo arm and a wire off both sides to open the flaps

TAKE CARE with gluing the hinges in... part of my problems with the Y control rod was a sticky hinge.... too much glue and I didnt pick up on the fact until yesterday I spent about an hour with a magnifying glass, some tweezers and a pin cleaning it out to free it what a pain in the ....

Ok... Fisrt flight was today. Running the engine was the only thing I had planned on doing but pure pressure drove me into doing it. The saito 220 is too much engine for this plane!! First and only flight...

Take off... All I can say is let it build speed before you try any sudden movements, the gear for mine being so close were very touchy as I'm sure the real deal was. Take off was at 1/2 power and flew very well after a little trim to the right aileron.

Low slow passes were done at about 1/4 throttle without flaps. High passes were at 1/2 for me. Tracks very true and looks sweet in flight.

Landing is another story.. If you can prevent from moving your gear in any closer to senter...DON'T DO IT... Full flaps slowed her down to a crawl but you can't touch the rudder until she slows down or she'll flip OR scrape the wing tips and flip!! Took alot of runway to land and slow down so I'll be doing some adjustments there too.

After that flight, I was too shaken to go up again and everyone wanted to see it so we'll do a few more adjustments to the flaps as I went with a full setup without the air brakes.

No pictures from me but there were many taken by lots of the guys at the field and some I didn't know whom I'm sure will post pictures somewhere.

She is a keeper but I wish I went with a smaller motor like the 1.6. 0r a 1.8 saito. Vibration is severe!! I'll check her over tonight and do it again when my nerves calm down.[:'(]

Good luck to you all.

If its a new 220, the vibrations will settle down once the motor is broke in well. Also, not sure exactly how you mounted it, but using vibration dampening mounts sometimes actually amplifies the problem.

Now, you said it slowed to a crawl with the landing flaps only yes? I wonder how fast you could slow the plane down once the mains touch if you flipped the air brakes on. Since these kinda act like a "crow" setup, it should create a lot of drag. of course, you'd want to test this in the air up high to see what the plane does first. You may end up having to mix in an elevator to airbrake setting if it balloons are loses altitude(more likely it will climb a little if you have the top airbrake set to stock configuration where it doesnt deflect up as much as the lower portion goes down).
Where did you set the CG? Did you think it flew really well at the point, or do you think a different location would be better and why?

what do you mean gear so close?

The landing gear on ME-109's are pretty close to the center of the fuse when down. This makes the plane relatively unstable on the ground. its a trait of the real plane and is why many of the real ones were damaged or lost during the war due to landing accidents.
The gear locations on the CMP is actually spread farther out from the fuse then is scale to the real plane, so even with this slightly wider wheel stance, Ramstein is saying the plane behaves like the real thing.
My KMP Me-109 is like this and its gear is closer together. They take off usually ok, but landing, well, you gotta let the speed bleed off on the ground before you stear with rudder to turn it around or head to the pits cuz it will scrape a wing tip due to the centrifigal force caused by really close together langing gear.
Think of a mustang.....when the gear is down....the wheels are quite far apart....at least twice the distance as the wheels are on an ME-109.........and this is why the mustang lands and taxi's so easy.