RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Steve

They are $6.95 a piece. he had 18 left after i ordered mine.

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Good news, the canopy from NitroPlanes is in mint condition. No packaging other than a simple cardboard box and the canopy in its plastic bag. The last two canopies were in newspaper protection and got destoryed.

Simple seemed to work here.

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Thanks JS615

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

3 sucsessful flights out of my me109 and then carried it home in a bag........ vids to come

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

First start at the feild
http://s443.photobucket.com/albums/q...t=DSCF3828.flv

First takeoff, it was a little hairy to be honest I had to use quite a bit of up elevator to keep it from nosing over, yes the CG was within spec as was the throws, I had about 10% expo and was trimming it for the first few rounds, I ended up with 25% expo and reduced the throws after the first flight
http://s443.photobucket.com/albums/q...t=DSCF3829.flv

First landing in a cross wind, with flaps but no brakes, I found the brake would cause it to nose down in flight
http://s443.photobucket.com/albums/q...t=DSCF3834.flv

The aftermath of my "little accident" even though I was a bit pissed this hobby teaches you to "get over it" hence getting the camera to video it before I packed it up, this is how it was found untouched however my comment about the spinner was incorrect as it had disintegrated
http://s443.photobucket.com/albums/q...t=DSCF3836.flv
http://s443.photobucket.com/albums/q...t=DSCF3837.flv

One the crash run I was getting a little braver and had performed several loops, on the one before the crash I pulled it in tighter as it was leveling out at around 10 m and it got a mind of its own doing a spiral pattern straight into the ground, from fault to crash was about 1-2 seconds so it happened very fast I really suspect the elevator controls caused the fault but who really can tell it happened so fast, all my other planes have been up to a 70 size two stroke and this is the first plane I have had crash so soon after the maiden, I have been flying for over 7 years now and this has really knocked my confidence just spent the rest of the day flying my Raptor

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Would I buy another ME109? no there were too many issues with it that had to be fixed from the tail ball link to the engine mount still a rather expensive day, the motor seems ok but the exaust port has had the thread dammaged

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Very sorry to hear that Snappa, It's never a good day when a new plane goes down..especially when there are so many questions as to why! Don't loose heart bro, there are too many nice planes out there to fly and so little time....

Cheers, Paul.

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Yeah its a pain $NZ620 (plane only) gone in the blink of an eye and that was Septembers price interesting to convert it again and the price would now be $NZ775 and there is NO WAY this kit is worth that much!

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Not knowing the airfoil of the CMP Me109, washout(if any), your control throws and a half dozen other things not to mention not seeing the actual flight where it crashed I would say that to much elevator was used to pull out of the loop causing the wing to stall. Basically you had sufficient elevator authority to induce a stall at high speed. This plane may have a tendency to stall easily, but without video it is impossible to judge. That is a typical reaction of a heavy scale model in any event.

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Snappa

Sorry about the ME109,, i am still waiting to get my replacement Canopy from AK Models,,, and then i will be test flying my ME 109,, after seeing the aftermath of your crash i am a little nervous about the test flight,, did this plane feel like it had tip stall tendency's at low speed when you were coming in to land on the first test flights,,????

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

snappa

It always $ucks when one of our models go in. New or old. In my 20 years of flying, I figure I have planted more than my share of models. But I never give up on the model that crashed, or anything that I didn't get right the first time.

One major reason why I look for bargains.

Also,I figure, If I walked away from it, I can do it again if I want. ( Thats what I use to keep myself up beat)

Still it sucks.

Steve

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Sounds like the elevator throw was enough to cause it to snap out of the loop. This plane has high wing loading, and will not tolerate being tossed around like a lightly loaded sport plane. Many of my warbirds will snap if I use full elevator. It does not bother me because I know it is there. Reducing the throws is not always a good solution unless you want to switch to a different rate for the landing. As the plane slows down it may need more throw so you don't run out of elevator. I have seen quite a few warbird crashes that were from the same thing, too much elevator at speed induces a stall and snap. A spiral into the ground is a common result. During the early period when the CG is not yet adjusted the issue can be more pronounced.

The maiden takeoff did appear to be a bit scary. As you mentioned, you needed up elevator to prevent the nose over. The balancing act is one of the hardest things to perfect when flying a heavy warbird. As speed builds the elevator must be smoothly returned to normal. Too early on the liftoff due to the up elevator also causes many crashes. For most maidens I will put some down trim on the elevator. Many ARF's will need down trim, and having too much up elevator on the first takeoff can also cause an early lift off.

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

no while flying I did several runs at height slow to check how it behaved, with flaps, and without yes you are correct I have several planes which require this ballancing act now, I reduced the throw down after the first flight in my opinion the manual gives it too much.... my loop was tight and fast but not severe so I dont think it was a stall type of failure but more mechanical

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Must say apart from the usual trimming on the first flight it didnt feel right while flying around, very twitchy and sensitive on the controls I was intending to set it up with dual rates once I had it trimmed and sorted I have had this with other planes though its all about fine tuning, for the record I have been flying planes and helis for quite a while now so I am not new to this, just new to 4 strokes and planes of this size

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

snappa

After flying mine, I would lean towards thinking it was a mechanical or electronic mishap. Not concluding that I"m right, just guessing.

Steve

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

My much heavier then most ME-109 did not seem to behave badly at all. Inf act, I acutlaly felt quite comfortable with it rather quickly. It seemed rock solid to me. However, the 17.5 pound weight of the plane may also play a part in that feeling. I do concir that its quite possible it was a stall induced by the elevator. There will enver be anyway to know for sure and of course mechanical failure can also be the cause. I have stalled several planes in the past using too much elevator and sure enough....they spiraled into the ground.

Snappa...Im sorry for the loss. Its a really good looking plane(hence why I bought a spare). I didnt experience the same issues you did on the take off. In fact, it raised its tail just fine and then rose off the ground later on down the runway. I also didnt have issues with it wanting to nose over and my CG was at 108mm....well ahead of the manuals listing.
Your landing seemed quite fast in the video. Granted....most of use land the first several flights faster then needed. I was skittish about that too and did several attempts to land on the maiden and each time initally the plane was coming in too fast.
I finally got it sloed down and it seemed quite stable. In fact I felt I could have slowed it down a lot more. Anyhow......maybe you might consider one of the KMP planes that are coming.
These are the ones I know about that are supposed to be released this year:
73" SBD Douglas Divebomber April
84" Ki-84 ????
93" Feisler Storch - June
82" hawker Hurricane - April
Fairy Swordfish ????

There are others, but I dont have the full list.

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Damn shame snapper i hate to see any planes crash mate:( your right about them servo trays though they are flimsy ay,i might have to exopy some ribs under it somewhere.You know what they need is servos on the tail the same as the ailerons so the rods arent so long,i had a 120 spitfire that got elevator flutter and hit the deck because the rods where dowell and wire,it was a sportsman aviation kit and il never buy another one of them,by the looks of them KMP kits thats what im getn next mate.Dont let it phase ya just try harder and dont let em beat ya mate.

sorry to hear mate
Grahame

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Actually thats what I think too

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

yes you are correct I always come in fast for the first one and also do several test runs first I would rather come in hot than stall 3 feet off the runway

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

I have been out flying all morning today as its now 2pm here, yes I can still fly planes lol as they say get back on the horse...... had a real pounding the last 3 months lost 3 planes all to things out of my control and all them were over a year old! apart from the ME 109

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

What's the main spars made of in this model ? I've heard of some cmp models using balsa spars..

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Tail heavy?, alot of arf's are a bit optimistic in thier CG location. I usually will do a mean average chord calculation to double check the manual and keep it in the 28% range to start. I have owned several warbirds that would snap from level flight if you pulled the elevaotr back to hard. Sorry to hear about your plane, we have all been their, just part of the hobby.

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

Dont loose confidence in your flying , it looked fine to me . I agree with the others that said mecahnical !!!

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

CMP planes provide poor CG recomendations at best. Others here have had sucess within the range, so if you are indeed in the front of the range I would think in this instance things will be OK. I have a few, and most have been off a bit (need to be more forward than recommended).

Snappa, everything you describe sure sounds like a plane that was a bit tail heavy. If this plane is even a little tail heavy, enough elevator throw will cause the plane to snap if you loop a bit tight. Elevator failures very seldom cause a spin in. Snapping out of a loop pretty much always does. I'm not saying the crash was within your control, but I doubt very much that a mechanical failure caused it from your description.

To prevent it from happening I take the plane high and see how much elevator I have at speed. Elevator throw adjustments sometimes have to be made so you won't snap unexpectedly. I find that any aircraft with the forward elevator strakes always seem to have plenty of authority. It is likely that the CMP throw recommendations for the elevator are a bit much when combined with a bit rearward CG. I will typically put triple rates on the elevator for the maiden so I can find one that will work until more adjustments can be made.

Don't get discuraged about large aircraft. They provide added pressure and excitement that is tough to beat, and I'm sure you'll have much sucess if you stick with it.

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
 

I think that having 3 successful flights would make the CG issue a lessor factor.

I think if the CG was that far off, the model would be almost impossible to take off/land safely. In the 1st vid, the early lift off and steep angle of attack would have flipped the model over on its back if the CG was that much off. Not even one flight. Even a forgiving trainer out of CG with not have a safe flight/ landing.

A stall, maybe, but why couldn't one pull out, or stop the spin with ailerons, even if heading straight down. No altitude, maybe.

I don't have the answer, but trying to eliminate some of the questions. I think, CG was ok.

Steve