CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
08-24-2009, 12:07 PM
#1279
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
Count me in on the spinner too. I like the fact that it doesnt require a bolt through the middle liek the dave platt one I currently have for my 2nd CMP ME-109. Also the fact that its metal.
08-24-2009, 09:50 PM
#1283
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Johns Island,
SC
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
Radio Shack sold a sheet metal nibbler but I don't think they sell any tools anymore. The Radio Shacks around me sell only cell phones and toys. Here is a link to the nibbler they use to sell.
http://www.mcmaster.com/#3623a14/=3c2rsv
I use one like this to cut my spinners.
Brian-
http://www.mcmaster.com/#3623a14/=3c2rsv
I use one like this to cut my spinners.
Brian-
08-25-2009, 01:28 AM
#1285
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: , AUSTRALIA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I'm in too. Let us know when you are ready for the cash! My plastic spinner exploded in the pits at my model field. Iwas not very popular for a while there.....
08-25-2009, 07:53 AM
#1287
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
No Flaps, I would say any gas engine is a bad fit for this plane (unless it is really light). Even with an OS 1.60 I had to move the battery back into the tail.
I don't remember seeing anyone who has flown a gas engine, did I miss the post?
I don't remember seeing anyone who has flown a gas engine, did I miss the post?
08-25-2009, 05:06 PM
#1289
My Feedback: (102)
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I usually cut my slots with a dremel tool and cut off wheel and then small round sander to smooth it out.
The good thing about the spinner i have is that you can get 2 domes and make a 2 and a 3 blade spinner. The back plates are robust enough to handle drilling out 2 sets of holes..
Ty
The good thing about the spinner i have is that you can get 2 domes and make a 2 and a 3 blade spinner. The back plates are robust enough to handle drilling out 2 sets of holes..
Ty
09-01-2009, 03:40 PM
#1290
My Feedback: (1)
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
Hot Rod,
Can you explain more about why a gas engine wouldn't be good for this plane? I've been talking to my LHS guy and he tells me about a lot of planes this size using the Evo 26cc range of engines successfully and thats what I'd planned on putting in mine when I got around to building it. I haven't used a gasser before but my friends seem to like them and we thought the 26cc should work.
I haven't seen anyone using a gasser in this plane yet and frankly I've been holding off until someone posted a success (or horror) story about using one.
Thoughts?
Tim
Can you explain more about why a gas engine wouldn't be good for this plane? I've been talking to my LHS guy and he tells me about a lot of planes this size using the Evo 26cc range of engines successfully and thats what I'd planned on putting in mine when I got around to building it. I haven't used a gasser before but my friends seem to like them and we thought the 26cc should work.
I haven't seen anyone using a gasser in this plane yet and frankly I've been holding off until someone posted a success (or horror) story about using one.
Thoughts?
Tim
ORIGINAL: Hot Rod Todd
No Flaps, I would say any gas engine is a bad fit for this plane (unless it is really light). Even with an OS 1.60 I had to move the battery back into the tail.
I don't remember seeing anyone who has flown a gas engine, did I miss the post?
No Flaps, I would say any gas engine is a bad fit for this plane (unless it is really light). Even with an OS 1.60 I had to move the battery back into the tail.
I don't remember seeing anyone who has flown a gas engine, did I miss the post?
09-01-2009, 04:08 PM
#1291
My Feedback: (131)
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I wanted to do the same, but from what I've gathererd from this thread; this plane with it's long nose has a tendency to nose over already. That fact combined with the fact that gas engines which are known for being notoriously heavier than nitro engine (not to mention the batteries for the electronic ignition) will be an awful lot of weight for a plane which is already heavy for it's size, leads me to believe this is where all the hesitancy comes into play.
I suspect, it would work fine as my MVVS 26CC is essentially the same as the Evo 26cc, but others convinced me to keep the wing loading light.
I'd encourage anyone to do it, and would prefer if someone did it before me.
I suspect, it would work fine as my MVVS 26CC is essentially the same as the Evo 26cc, but others convinced me to keep the wing loading light.
I'd encourage anyone to do it, and would prefer if someone did it before me.
09-01-2009, 06:32 PM
#1292
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
Well to try and shed a little light relative to the gasser not so good for this plane....lets look at mine. Sure its an electric, but I'll explain where the weight is.
I've got the electric motor and the ESC as well as the retract valve and servo all up front. Additionally, I have the RX battery snug up against the very front of the plane just behind the forward firewall where the spinner backplate is up next to....so basically as far forward as possible. This is a 6v 2700mah nimh. I also have a 6c 1500mah nimh for the flaps sitting right behind that rx pack. So, think of the footprint of the gasser motor inside the nose. All of my motor/esc/servo/rxc batteries are located in the nose in the space a gasser would occupy.
The point is, the overall weight of those components is about what a gasser would be. My flight batteries(2x 5cell 5000 lipos sit over the wing on the CG so that makes no difference.
I dont think you'd have any problems using a gasser. There is plenty of room aft of the main servo tray to put RX packs, ignition batteries..etc. A simply ply wood plate glued to the fuse under the cockput should work just fine for this. I ended up making a 2ndary servo tray under the cockpit area because the main servo tray is used up by the 2x 5s 5000 lipos. If you did need to put an rx pack or whatever in the tail, it wouldnt be a problem either. there is plenty of room back there under the tail wheel assembly to located and secure an rx pack.
This plane only has a tendency to nose over if you set the CG further forward then 112mm. My first one had a CG of 108mm and it flew fine and landed well and not overly fast. It did want to pitch up a good deal with full flaps, but thats easily taken care of with an elevator to flap mix. I merely held in down elevator when landing it on the maiden. I did get a prop strike on the 2nd take off attempt though cuz the nose did want to over rotate a little. If you keep to the 112mm-120mm CG as listed in the manual, your shouldnt have nose over problems.
My 2nd one has the CG at 112mm and it seems much better. I did a 2nd one because I wanted to use a 3 blade prop and a different spinner(Dave platt) and it required a different motor be used due to that spinner requiring a bolt through the middle to affix the spinner cone.
Another thing you can do to lighten the front if necessary is to hollow out the exhaust stacks that CMP supplies. Stock they are pretty heavy. Almost like plaster of paris with a little fiberglass cloth imbedded inside. I hollowed them out somewhat because under them is where I hid the on/off rx switch, air fill valve, esc arming switch, and on/off switch for the battery for a matchbox i have connected to the 4 flaps. Now those exhaust stacks are held in place via rare earth magnets.
One last note...my FIRST CMP ME-109 weighed in at 17.5 pounds and flew fine with no problems in the air.
I've got the electric motor and the ESC as well as the retract valve and servo all up front. Additionally, I have the RX battery snug up against the very front of the plane just behind the forward firewall where the spinner backplate is up next to....so basically as far forward as possible. This is a 6v 2700mah nimh. I also have a 6c 1500mah nimh for the flaps sitting right behind that rx pack. So, think of the footprint of the gasser motor inside the nose. All of my motor/esc/servo/rxc batteries are located in the nose in the space a gasser would occupy.
The point is, the overall weight of those components is about what a gasser would be. My flight batteries(2x 5cell 5000 lipos sit over the wing on the CG so that makes no difference.
I dont think you'd have any problems using a gasser. There is plenty of room aft of the main servo tray to put RX packs, ignition batteries..etc. A simply ply wood plate glued to the fuse under the cockput should work just fine for this. I ended up making a 2ndary servo tray under the cockpit area because the main servo tray is used up by the 2x 5s 5000 lipos. If you did need to put an rx pack or whatever in the tail, it wouldnt be a problem either. there is plenty of room back there under the tail wheel assembly to located and secure an rx pack.
This plane only has a tendency to nose over if you set the CG further forward then 112mm. My first one had a CG of 108mm and it flew fine and landed well and not overly fast. It did want to pitch up a good deal with full flaps, but thats easily taken care of with an elevator to flap mix. I merely held in down elevator when landing it on the maiden. I did get a prop strike on the 2nd take off attempt though cuz the nose did want to over rotate a little. If you keep to the 112mm-120mm CG as listed in the manual, your shouldnt have nose over problems.
My 2nd one has the CG at 112mm and it seems much better. I did a 2nd one because I wanted to use a 3 blade prop and a different spinner(Dave platt) and it required a different motor be used due to that spinner requiring a bolt through the middle to affix the spinner cone.
Another thing you can do to lighten the front if necessary is to hollow out the exhaust stacks that CMP supplies. Stock they are pretty heavy. Almost like plaster of paris with a little fiberglass cloth imbedded inside. I hollowed them out somewhat because under them is where I hid the on/off rx switch, air fill valve, esc arming switch, and on/off switch for the battery for a matchbox i have connected to the 4 flaps. Now those exhaust stacks are held in place via rare earth magnets.
One last note...my FIRST CMP ME-109 weighed in at 17.5 pounds and flew fine with no problems in the air.
09-01-2009, 07:26 PM
#1293
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I would have to agree with Kahlog. A gas engine would of course, work. CG problem could easily be countered by a little ballast at the tail. Vibration may be a problem with these cheap polyester resin fuses though.
The nose over problem could be eliminated by putting the LG in the correct scale location. along with correct scale rake
I would use gas but the smell of gas would bug me in my shop. My garden shed is bad enough. I have tried "white gas" (no smell really) in a weedwacker, but its engine life was cut short. Maybe not enough oil.
Steve
The nose over problem could be eliminated by putting the LG in the correct scale location. along with correct scale rake
I would use gas but the smell of gas would bug me in my shop. My garden shed is bad enough. I have tried "white gas" (no smell really) in a weedwacker, but its engine life was cut short. Maybe not enough oil.
Steve
09-02-2009, 02:44 AM
#1294
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Talamanca de JaramaMadrid, SPAIN
Posts: 583
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
Hey kahloq what a nice nazi feast you have organized there!....... Even a nice short skirted with long stockings SS blonde!.
Humor aside, wonderfull collection of 109's you have there, my best preferred warbird. Congratulations.
Best Regards from Spain,
Jesus Cardin
Humor aside, wonderfull collection of 109's you have there, my best preferred warbird. Congratulations.
Best Regards from Spain,
Jesus Cardin
09-02-2009, 07:38 AM
#1295
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
Depending on which gas engine you choose, it could be an option. The EVO 26GX weighs about the same as my OS 1.60 (add a few more ounces for the ignition unit and battery). I could see one of those working. The Zenoah G26 (engine only) on the other hand weighs about a pound more. You would have a challenge ballancing the plane with the extra nose weight using the Zenoah. The extra weight of the ignition on the EVO 26 would be countered by a need for less fuel. In reality you would likely run the same size tank, but would get longer run times. Power would be quite a bit less than the glow motor, but I normally run around at 1/2 throttle anyway to save fuel (and the plane will fly at 100mph at half throttle). I doubt the EVO 26 would vibrate any more than the same size glow engine. So to clarify I would say a light gasser should work just fine.
As for flying fine at 17.5 lbs, it might. I for one would not like landing the plane at that weight unless I had a fairly long and smooth runway. I take off at about 16 lbs, but with the fuel burn I land at closer to 15.
As for flying fine at 17.5 lbs, it might. I for one would not like landing the plane at that weight unless I had a fairly long and smooth runway. I take off at about 16 lbs, but with the fuel burn I land at closer to 15.
09-09-2009, 03:39 PM
#1298
My Feedback: (102)
RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
Hey guys,
I have been really busy. But I have everything lined up to get spinners made. I am sending off for the domes tomorrow. I ran across another thread. Did Gene Barton ever make a spinner for this plane?? After looking into this I am hoping to bring this spinner in cheaper than I originally thought it would be...
Ty
I have been really busy. But I have everything lined up to get spinners made. I am sending off for the domes tomorrow. I ran across another thread. Did Gene Barton ever make a spinner for this plane?? After looking into this I am hoping to bring this spinner in cheaper than I originally thought it would be...
Ty