DeHavilland Mosquito
12-21-2010, 06:50 AM
#1202
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: BrisbaneQLD, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Heya Jimm
I know there's been some cowls extended, but that's been more about installing longer engines and reducing prop - cowl gaps. I think the basic reason for not doing it this: too much effort for too little gain. Even when extending the cowls to close up the gaps you alter the plane away (or further away than it already is) from a scale profile and if you start moving the engine forward that starts to become a major (ie: noticable) change to the profile. Despite the fact that the engines are the heaviest part, moving them forward a bit doesn't make much change in a twin because the distance between the COG and the mass of the engine is MUCH less than the distance from the COG to the tail. Even in a single engine'd plane 3 ounce of weight on the nose is roughly equal to 1 ounces on the tail, so it's probably close to a 5:1 ratio at the firewalls on a twin. You do however cause yourself a whole bunch of work around engine mounts, cowl extensions and so on for little gain.
I know there's been some cowls extended, but that's been more about installing longer engines and reducing prop - cowl gaps. I think the basic reason for not doing it this: too much effort for too little gain. Even when extending the cowls to close up the gaps you alter the plane away (or further away than it already is) from a scale profile and if you start moving the engine forward that starts to become a major (ie: noticable) change to the profile. Despite the fact that the engines are the heaviest part, moving them forward a bit doesn't make much change in a twin because the distance between the COG and the mass of the engine is MUCH less than the distance from the COG to the tail. Even in a single engine'd plane 3 ounce of weight on the nose is roughly equal to 1 ounces on the tail, so it's probably close to a 5:1 ratio at the firewalls on a twin. You do however cause yourself a whole bunch of work around engine mounts, cowl extensions and so on for little gain.
12-21-2010, 07:31 AM
#1204
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: BrisbaneQLD, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 648
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
The whole thing's 'glass, tail feathers and all. The horizontal stabs are mounted the way you expect wings to be, with an alum tube running through the fuse... only the stabs are glued on instead of being bolted on like wings. It's been a while since I assembled mine but if I remember correctly the vertical stab is part of the fuse, moulded in one piece. Not a lot of options to lighten them really. Oh, and the mechanics for the rudder/tailwheel are pretty fragile & complicated too, most likely to save weight and keep it all internal. Most folks throw it away and do something a little more rugged... I've opted to stay with the included bits but with a pull-pull system instead of the pushrod. I also arranged an internal control horn for the elevators on a single internal torque arm, instead of the twin pushrods sticking out through the fuse. Looks great from the outside... hopefully it'll all stand up to the rigours of flight/landing.
The whole weight problem simply comes down to it being a very long tail, the wings being fairly far forward, and the engines being mounted on the wings instead of the nose... all goes to making a very tail heavy plane. Yay for old WW2 designs. Now, if we mounted all the guns and ammo that the real once had in the nose, maybe it'd balance...
The whole weight problem simply comes down to it being a very long tail, the wings being fairly far forward, and the engines being mounted on the wings instead of the nose... all goes to making a very tail heavy plane. Yay for old WW2 designs. Now, if we mounted all the guns and ammo that the real once had in the nose, maybe it'd balance...
12-21-2010, 02:50 PM
#1205
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Dear jimm
I started out with O.S. 45FSR ABC engines on my first model. I already had them laying around and had the parts on hand to repair them. They however had smaller carburetor openings and would lag quite a bit when trying to run up those 3 1/2 inch aluminum spinners I had on the model. I thought that since the model specifications called out for engines between a 25 to 32 size, that I could throttle back the older 45 engines and still use them. Turns out, I seriously doubt anyone could fly this model with 25 engines on it. If they could get it into the air, maybe, but you need a lot of power to get the model off of the ground. My 45FSR ABC engines really worked very hard just to get it off of the runway.
I have a link of that first flight with the 45FSR engines on it.
The link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICW_PBKAsOo
As you can see, they were not powerful enough to really get the model in the air. I thought about going to an older O.S. 46 SF engine, because I love the sound that the older engines make on a twin model. I found out though that the O.S. 40SF engines were heavier than the 46 SF counter parts, so I went with those engines instead because of the very situation you were writing about. I lost my first model because it was too tail heavy. The plans were wrong and I had to finally put the CG on my model at the 110 mm point, to get it to fly real nice.
The 40SF engines pretty much had the same displacement as the older 45 SFR engines but because they had bigger carburetors I actually had more power. That worked out well with the 10 x 5 Top Flight power point props I was using.
That link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZPewtLpsCE
As you can see in this video, I had a little more success with the 40SF engines. They ran really sweet and they always ran perfectly together just with old fashioned mechanical adjustments.
The only problem I had now is that the model did not look scale in the air with the smaller props on them. I really needed to go to an 11 x 5 prop to make it look more scale like. My 40SF engines were just not big enough to turn over the 11 inch prop and the 3 1/2 inch spinners, so I stuck with the 10 x 5 props. They performed real well, but the model looked a little funny on the low high speed passes. That was ok though for me. The model flew like a bullet going over a 100 mph in the dive approaching the runway. Once you have the nacells on the model, that is when you really pick up an extra kick in the performace. In the second link above, I might have been going 90 mph or so, and that was without the nacells put on the model in this test flight. I figured, why put another whole day carving out the nacells with my dremel tool if it wasn't going to fly.
I cracked her up pretty bad this past August, when I was flying with 20 other models in our WW II recreation on Sunday afternoon during our Model Air Show with the GCRCC (Greater Cincinnati Radio Control Club)
We had a real bad cross wind (up to 25 mph) and it took all the right rudder I had and the entire width of the "real" runway we were flying off of just to get it off the ground. ( again, power issues) Once I got her in the air, I was passing most folks up and had to throttle back to say in the formation. After several bombing runs, I decided to go ahead and radio in to land first, in the event I had to go around again. As I approached the runway, I decided to NOT use flaps for fear of the model stalling with the bad crosswind, but it was too late and she just ran out of air under her wings. The CMP mosquito needs a lot of air under her wings to land her safely.
She just stopped flying and dropped 25 feet to the ground and busted up my third wing to the point that it would just be less headache to buy another kit and build a new wing. (it will be my fourth wing to go along with my second fuselage)
In this video link, one of the ground guys was taking spot video of some of the prep work before we started our Flying Circus air show on Saturday Morning. He was really interested in the engines running up on my Mossi and decided to take video of me warming up the engines and setting them for the day. She flew great on Saturday, and I was flying with 21 models that day. You talk about an adrenalin rush....!!! [sm=tongue_smile.gif]
That link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPuDOZsQOQY
Anyway I will now be going to the O.S 46FX engine to get the pop I need on the runway to get it off the ground quickly. I have rebuilt one already that I got off of eBay and will purchase another and rebuild it soon. This way I will then be able to go the 11 x 5 or 6 props depending on how they load up, and I will finally have the power I need to get the 13 pound model off of the ground.
I am looking into adding curved leading edges in between the nacells and the fuselage. In the first generation of kits that came out, they had placed what looked like a radiator or an air vent decal on that space on the leading edge of the wing.
I now beleive the model will have more lift and be easier to land if I round out those leading edges. This just seems like a very likely suspect in why the plane tends to drop out of the sky as you make you approach to the runway. It is a very large part of the wing and I need to able to use that area of the wing at the slower speeds, so the air flow clings tightly to the wing instead of blowing over that area because there is no leading edge. A lot of my buddies said it will more than likely not make a lot of difference, but we will see. I certainly have nothing to loose adding the leading edges. I just do not see how it will do anything but help with lift at the near stall speed I am having trouble with now. Besides that area will greatly effect in helping with the flaps too.
It has ALWAYS been a hassel landing this model, whether you use flaps or not, but it seems that if you use about 50% of the flap on the model it does fly better on the approach.
In my case, and I beleive in many others in the forum, my other problem had been the addtional one pound of weight in the nose to get her to balance at the 110 mm point.
I mean what do you do. If you don't add the weight, the plane flies just awful and you are doomed with the stalling of it being too tail heavy. When you add the weight to make it fly realy well, then it drops out of the sky on the approach. You have to fly the model to the ground, and pull up at the last second. That is what I did in the second video. I was lucky. That is still the BEST landing I have ever had with this model. We had a lot of wind right down the runway, and I know that made a real big difference. I have sent you a few photos too so I hope I was able to shed some light on the subject.
Good Luck...!
David
I started out with O.S. 45FSR ABC engines on my first model. I already had them laying around and had the parts on hand to repair them. They however had smaller carburetor openings and would lag quite a bit when trying to run up those 3 1/2 inch aluminum spinners I had on the model. I thought that since the model specifications called out for engines between a 25 to 32 size, that I could throttle back the older 45 engines and still use them. Turns out, I seriously doubt anyone could fly this model with 25 engines on it. If they could get it into the air, maybe, but you need a lot of power to get the model off of the ground. My 45FSR ABC engines really worked very hard just to get it off of the runway.
I have a link of that first flight with the 45FSR engines on it.
The link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICW_PBKAsOo
As you can see, they were not powerful enough to really get the model in the air. I thought about going to an older O.S. 46 SF engine, because I love the sound that the older engines make on a twin model. I found out though that the O.S. 40SF engines were heavier than the 46 SF counter parts, so I went with those engines instead because of the very situation you were writing about. I lost my first model because it was too tail heavy. The plans were wrong and I had to finally put the CG on my model at the 110 mm point, to get it to fly real nice.
The 40SF engines pretty much had the same displacement as the older 45 SFR engines but because they had bigger carburetors I actually had more power. That worked out well with the 10 x 5 Top Flight power point props I was using.
That link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZPewtLpsCE
As you can see in this video, I had a little more success with the 40SF engines. They ran really sweet and they always ran perfectly together just with old fashioned mechanical adjustments.
The only problem I had now is that the model did not look scale in the air with the smaller props on them. I really needed to go to an 11 x 5 prop to make it look more scale like. My 40SF engines were just not big enough to turn over the 11 inch prop and the 3 1/2 inch spinners, so I stuck with the 10 x 5 props. They performed real well, but the model looked a little funny on the low high speed passes. That was ok though for me. The model flew like a bullet going over a 100 mph in the dive approaching the runway. Once you have the nacells on the model, that is when you really pick up an extra kick in the performace. In the second link above, I might have been going 90 mph or so, and that was without the nacells put on the model in this test flight. I figured, why put another whole day carving out the nacells with my dremel tool if it wasn't going to fly.
I cracked her up pretty bad this past August, when I was flying with 20 other models in our WW II recreation on Sunday afternoon during our Model Air Show with the GCRCC (Greater Cincinnati Radio Control Club)
We had a real bad cross wind (up to 25 mph) and it took all the right rudder I had and the entire width of the "real" runway we were flying off of just to get it off the ground. ( again, power issues) Once I got her in the air, I was passing most folks up and had to throttle back to say in the formation. After several bombing runs, I decided to go ahead and radio in to land first, in the event I had to go around again. As I approached the runway, I decided to NOT use flaps for fear of the model stalling with the bad crosswind, but it was too late and she just ran out of air under her wings. The CMP mosquito needs a lot of air under her wings to land her safely.
She just stopped flying and dropped 25 feet to the ground and busted up my third wing to the point that it would just be less headache to buy another kit and build a new wing. (it will be my fourth wing to go along with my second fuselage)
In this video link, one of the ground guys was taking spot video of some of the prep work before we started our Flying Circus air show on Saturday Morning. He was really interested in the engines running up on my Mossi and decided to take video of me warming up the engines and setting them for the day. She flew great on Saturday, and I was flying with 21 models that day. You talk about an adrenalin rush....!!! [sm=tongue_smile.gif]
That link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPuDOZsQOQY
Anyway I will now be going to the O.S 46FX engine to get the pop I need on the runway to get it off the ground quickly. I have rebuilt one already that I got off of eBay and will purchase another and rebuild it soon. This way I will then be able to go the 11 x 5 or 6 props depending on how they load up, and I will finally have the power I need to get the 13 pound model off of the ground.
I am looking into adding curved leading edges in between the nacells and the fuselage. In the first generation of kits that came out, they had placed what looked like a radiator or an air vent decal on that space on the leading edge of the wing.
I now beleive the model will have more lift and be easier to land if I round out those leading edges. This just seems like a very likely suspect in why the plane tends to drop out of the sky as you make you approach to the runway. It is a very large part of the wing and I need to able to use that area of the wing at the slower speeds, so the air flow clings tightly to the wing instead of blowing over that area because there is no leading edge. A lot of my buddies said it will more than likely not make a lot of difference, but we will see. I certainly have nothing to loose adding the leading edges. I just do not see how it will do anything but help with lift at the near stall speed I am having trouble with now. Besides that area will greatly effect in helping with the flaps too.
It has ALWAYS been a hassel landing this model, whether you use flaps or not, but it seems that if you use about 50% of the flap on the model it does fly better on the approach.
In my case, and I beleive in many others in the forum, my other problem had been the addtional one pound of weight in the nose to get her to balance at the 110 mm point.
I mean what do you do. If you don't add the weight, the plane flies just awful and you are doomed with the stalling of it being too tail heavy. When you add the weight to make it fly realy well, then it drops out of the sky on the approach. You have to fly the model to the ground, and pull up at the last second. That is what I did in the second video. I was lucky. That is still the BEST landing I have ever had with this model. We had a lot of wind right down the runway, and I know that made a real big difference. I have sent you a few photos too so I hope I was able to shed some light on the subject.
Good Luck...!
David
12-21-2010, 04:09 PM
#1206
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Meadow Lake,
SK, CANADA
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Jimm
On my Mossy (A general Hobbies Model) I Had the OS-40FS Engines with the stock Mufflers, I had to cut the bottom corner out of the nacelles so I could mount the engines.
I had smaller spinners, and 10X6 Mas props. added a ton of weight to the nose. unfortunately I tried to land it without flaps, it does not slow down very well,
and it took 3 attempts to land it, each one I came in lower and slower, and on the third attempt, it tip stalled, caught a wing tip on the runway and cartwheeled in. there we're no survivors.
On the next one I plane to do just as you suggested Jimm. I have picked up a set of pitts style exhaust and some cowl mount extensions and will go as far forward as I can with out getting too ugly. any weight I can save from the nose will do nothing but help it fly better.
post some pics with what you decide to do.
On my Mossy (A general Hobbies Model) I Had the OS-40FS Engines with the stock Mufflers, I had to cut the bottom corner out of the nacelles so I could mount the engines.
I had smaller spinners, and 10X6 Mas props. added a ton of weight to the nose. unfortunately I tried to land it without flaps, it does not slow down very well,
and it took 3 attempts to land it, each one I came in lower and slower, and on the third attempt, it tip stalled, caught a wing tip on the runway and cartwheeled in. there we're no survivors.
On the next one I plane to do just as you suggested Jimm. I have picked up a set of pitts style exhaust and some cowl mount extensions and will go as far forward as I can with out getting too ugly. any weight I can save from the nose will do nothing but help it fly better.
post some pics with what you decide to do.
12-22-2010, 09:29 AM
#1207
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Dear Smokey, ALL
Eric Henderson, Model builder and AMA magazine writer built a CMP mosquito, and he had someone melt down lead in a flat mold so he could mount it externally on the nose of the fuselage, He then painted the lead to match the colors. He then mounted his clear nose cone over that. He started writing in this forum years ago starting with post 218 I believe.
I think this might be another way of lowering the necessary weight to achieve the 110 mm point, however I suggest that you could get a 40 sized engine motor mount and bolt it to the nose of the fuselage. Then you could add weight to the very end of the mount some how and achieve a balance point with 8 or 9 ounces of weight instead of the 16 ounces I needed placed behind the nose of the firewall inside of the fuselage. The only hitch is you would have to paint the clear nose canopy if you did not want people to see the engine mount. However, if you can cut almost a 1/2 pound of flying weight out of the model, the resuslts on performace are really going to improve. It certainly will not hurt. Any comments on this idea?
I think there is enough room inside of the nose canopy area to do something like this.
ALL,
I just received these photographs from my club president. They were taken by Will Byers of RC Sport Magazine during the recreation of the Normady invasion at our GCRCC 50th Anniversary Air Circus. I had no idea that anyone got any photos of the Mossi during the show that weekend. I was truely greatful that he found these shots and sent them to me. Just wanted to share..
Merry Christmas everyone...!
David
Eric Henderson, Model builder and AMA magazine writer built a CMP mosquito, and he had someone melt down lead in a flat mold so he could mount it externally on the nose of the fuselage, He then painted the lead to match the colors. He then mounted his clear nose cone over that. He started writing in this forum years ago starting with post 218 I believe.
I think this might be another way of lowering the necessary weight to achieve the 110 mm point, however I suggest that you could get a 40 sized engine motor mount and bolt it to the nose of the fuselage. Then you could add weight to the very end of the mount some how and achieve a balance point with 8 or 9 ounces of weight instead of the 16 ounces I needed placed behind the nose of the firewall inside of the fuselage. The only hitch is you would have to paint the clear nose canopy if you did not want people to see the engine mount. However, if you can cut almost a 1/2 pound of flying weight out of the model, the resuslts on performace are really going to improve. It certainly will not hurt. Any comments on this idea?
I think there is enough room inside of the nose canopy area to do something like this.
ALL,
I just received these photographs from my club president. They were taken by Will Byers of RC Sport Magazine during the recreation of the Normady invasion at our GCRCC 50th Anniversary Air Circus. I had no idea that anyone got any photos of the Mossi during the show that weekend. I was truely greatful that he found these shots and sent them to me. Just wanted to share..
Merry Christmas everyone...!
David
12-25-2010, 11:33 AM
#1208
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mahomet,
IL
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Question for the scale guys, sorry if it's been covered and I missed it. Anybody know why on the full size aircraft some have a chin scoop and others don't?
Thanks.
Thanks.
12-25-2010, 04:10 PM
#1209
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
The Mk IV bombers and Mk VI fighters had low altitude Merlin engines like earlier Spitfires. The later bombers and PR recce airplanes like the B34 and PRXVI had high altitude Merlins like the Mk IX Spitfire and P-51 Mustangs. The chin scoop airplanes are the two stage supercharged, high altitude engined airplanes and the nacelles were longer than the low altitude versions, too. They had the spinners slightly ahead of the nose profile.
Chris...
Chris...
12-25-2010, 04:30 PM
#1211
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Hi Mr. Polley,
Sounds as if you have figured the model out by trial and error.
One thing of note. The flaps being down and the ailerons being raised just slightly delays the effects of a fully developed stall (known in R/C as the "tip stall"), as in any wing. With the Mossie model having to carry a lot of weight for balance this is critical, it will require a higher landing speed than if it were lighter.
Also; Using flaps on all approaches and landings along with a certain minimum airspeed will be necessary to allow reliable flight characteristics. If you slow it too much the wing will develop a spanwise flow of air over the sharply tapered outer panels. This will reduce available lift and increase a descent rate, raising the nose (or lowering an aileron) will force the wing to generate lift and without an increase of speed to first straighten the spanwise flow, it will stall the wing. As well, the engines at a throttle setting above idle will produce a lot of lift by boundary layer excitation because of the area the props blow over. The tips are not in this area but a reasonable speed will keep the whole wing flying.
Sounds as if you're almost there but don't quite appreciate the need for speed and the proper wing twist that the flaps and ailerons will provide. I wish you luck on your next one, you're certainly persistent and I sure appreciate your posts.
Merry Christmas,
Chris...
Sounds as if you have figured the model out by trial and error.
One thing of note. The flaps being down and the ailerons being raised just slightly delays the effects of a fully developed stall (known in R/C as the "tip stall"), as in any wing. With the Mossie model having to carry a lot of weight for balance this is critical, it will require a higher landing speed than if it were lighter.
Also; Using flaps on all approaches and landings along with a certain minimum airspeed will be necessary to allow reliable flight characteristics. If you slow it too much the wing will develop a spanwise flow of air over the sharply tapered outer panels. This will reduce available lift and increase a descent rate, raising the nose (or lowering an aileron) will force the wing to generate lift and without an increase of speed to first straighten the spanwise flow, it will stall the wing. As well, the engines at a throttle setting above idle will produce a lot of lift by boundary layer excitation because of the area the props blow over. The tips are not in this area but a reasonable speed will keep the whole wing flying.
Sounds as if you're almost there but don't quite appreciate the need for speed and the proper wing twist that the flaps and ailerons will provide. I wish you luck on your next one, you're certainly persistent and I sure appreciate your posts.
Merry Christmas,
Chris...
12-25-2010, 04:33 PM
#1212
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mahomet,
IL
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Chris, do you happen to know if there was a configuration that used the longer nacelles (chin scoops), solid nose and invasion stripes?
12-25-2010, 05:03 PM
#1213
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Hi CRG,
Try this one, looks cool. http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/m...nf30gmcd_1.htm
I've always been a bomber/PR fan and if I am unable to resist buying one will build it to look like the all-blue, glass nosed, long nacelle PR XVI with full invasion stripes (top and bottom of wings and all the way around the fuselage).
Chris...
Try this one, looks cool. http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/m...nf30gmcd_1.htm
I've always been a bomber/PR fan and if I am unable to resist buying one will build it to look like the all-blue, glass nosed, long nacelle PR XVI with full invasion stripes (top and bottom of wings and all the way around the fuselage).
Chris...
12-25-2010, 05:14 PM
#1214
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mahomet,
IL
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Thanks. I really like the invasion stripes, full or otherwise, and prefer a solid nose. Chin scoops for cooling. NE-D of the Banff group is high on the list if I can't find a striped one.
12-25-2010, 09:51 PM
#1215
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Dear Stuntflyr,
Yes indeed this model (CMP Mosquito) has been a "trial and error" nightmare since the first one I built, but I do appreciate the finish, and how she looks in the air. It is such a shame that they just didn't make the ARF kit better on the inside. However, it has been an exhausting labor of love to this point.
The beautiful flights that I have had with this model after everything else that has happened with me on this one has been worth all of the trouble. Just to be able to fly in the WW II event with all of the "big guys" is an experiance I will never forget. I have been flying and building models for over 32 years now, and I have a lot of old school and old fashioned ideas about RC modeling that I am still working with.
I know full well with the aid of a real nice programable computer radio, the proper mixing of the different flying surfaces, maybe even a gyro for use in the rudder, would really help me in getting her in the air and have more success from a spectator's point of view, but the challange to me of setting everything up the old way really makes flying this model even more exciting, knowing everything I have overcome to get me to this point.
I can not tell you how wonderful it is to have another model pilot come up to me and say that "you really flew that nice and it sounds so sweet in the air". Then the look on their faces that everything is mechanical just makes their jaw drop sometimes, and to me that is the best silent complement you can get from a fellow modeler.
Sure do appreciate you writing. Question though? Is the speed issue you mentioned in relation to the fact that the model does not look scale when it appears to be flying faster than it should?
If so, I do fly the model most of the time about 3/4 throttle for a more scale like appearence and all. However, I can not resist the urge with spectators at times to kick it in full throttle for a few low, high speed passes now and then. When I had made the videos I have on Youtube, I was just testing everything out to see what she would do in the air.
I plan on another video here in this forum soon, part of which is a nice piece of video my wife shot of me landing the mossi up close and personal in slow motion on our digital camera. I am working on splicing the pieces together to make a nice presentaion with some music on Youtube. This will be the first video of the mossie I have with the nacells on the airplane. I think it is really neat.
Merry Christmas to you to Chris...
David
Yes indeed this model (CMP Mosquito) has been a "trial and error" nightmare since the first one I built, but I do appreciate the finish, and how she looks in the air. It is such a shame that they just didn't make the ARF kit better on the inside. However, it has been an exhausting labor of love to this point.
The beautiful flights that I have had with this model after everything else that has happened with me on this one has been worth all of the trouble. Just to be able to fly in the WW II event with all of the "big guys" is an experiance I will never forget. I have been flying and building models for over 32 years now, and I have a lot of old school and old fashioned ideas about RC modeling that I am still working with.
I know full well with the aid of a real nice programable computer radio, the proper mixing of the different flying surfaces, maybe even a gyro for use in the rudder, would really help me in getting her in the air and have more success from a spectator's point of view, but the challange to me of setting everything up the old way really makes flying this model even more exciting, knowing everything I have overcome to get me to this point.
I can not tell you how wonderful it is to have another model pilot come up to me and say that "you really flew that nice and it sounds so sweet in the air". Then the look on their faces that everything is mechanical just makes their jaw drop sometimes, and to me that is the best silent complement you can get from a fellow modeler.
Sure do appreciate you writing. Question though? Is the speed issue you mentioned in relation to the fact that the model does not look scale when it appears to be flying faster than it should?
If so, I do fly the model most of the time about 3/4 throttle for a more scale like appearence and all. However, I can not resist the urge with spectators at times to kick it in full throttle for a few low, high speed passes now and then. When I had made the videos I have on Youtube, I was just testing everything out to see what she would do in the air.
I plan on another video here in this forum soon, part of which is a nice piece of video my wife shot of me landing the mossi up close and personal in slow motion on our digital camera. I am working on splicing the pieces together to make a nice presentaion with some music on Youtube. This will be the first video of the mossie I have with the nacells on the airplane. I think it is really neat.
Merry Christmas to you to Chris...
David
12-25-2010, 10:24 PM
#1216
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Meadow Lake,
SK, CANADA
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Chris: Merry Christmas
Thanks for the tip on the flaps and aileron setup. it is simple and it will work. thus help me to slow this bird down.
there is so much to be learned in these forum's.
One tip I read that I liked, was to a little WD-40 in the fuel to prevent foaming issues. not really an issue with the twin 2 strokes, but the twin 4 strokes seem to suffer from that alot more.
In all the videos I've watched with this bird that is the first I've ever noticed the chin scoops.
regards.
Rick.
Thanks for the tip on the flaps and aileron setup. it is simple and it will work. thus help me to slow this bird down.
there is so much to be learned in these forum's.
One tip I read that I liked, was to a little WD-40 in the fuel to prevent foaming issues. not really an issue with the twin 2 strokes, but the twin 4 strokes seem to suffer from that alot more.
In all the videos I've watched with this bird that is the first I've ever noticed the chin scoops.
regards.
Rick.
12-27-2010, 11:25 PM
#1217
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Hi David,
A quick reply about the speed, and programming.
I saw one of your videos and it looked nice. Models always seem to fly faster than scale speed and especially in smaller scales. It's normal, and once in a while a wide open pass at near 100 mph is fun and exciting. No problem there. I was really referring to getting the model too slow on approach as being a problem, and was advocating the use of flaps on all approaches. No matter the wing or x-wind. I tend to use an approach where I fly over the runway at a reasonable height at the direction of landing, then turn while slowing to my flap speed so as to arrive at say, 180 degrees and half flaps, then lower the gear and add full flaps while turning in to final a little higher and steeper than a normal model, then holding a speed that allows a margin of energy so as to allow a confident go around or a smooth, tail high touchdown while reducing throttle to idle.
As for the aileron rigging, just a turn of the clevis makes for an easy adjustment to get the necessary wash-out in the wing.
I recently went against my usual policy while testing my son's Spitfire and did not seal all of the control surface hinge line gaps. What a major mistake. It almost cost me the model. After sealing all of the hinge line gaps the model flew as smooth and predictably as a trainer. Another good practice on a model with as small of a wing as the Mosquito!
Chris...
A quick reply about the speed, and programming.
I saw one of your videos and it looked nice. Models always seem to fly faster than scale speed and especially in smaller scales. It's normal, and once in a while a wide open pass at near 100 mph is fun and exciting. No problem there. I was really referring to getting the model too slow on approach as being a problem, and was advocating the use of flaps on all approaches. No matter the wing or x-wind. I tend to use an approach where I fly over the runway at a reasonable height at the direction of landing, then turn while slowing to my flap speed so as to arrive at say, 180 degrees and half flaps, then lower the gear and add full flaps while turning in to final a little higher and steeper than a normal model, then holding a speed that allows a margin of energy so as to allow a confident go around or a smooth, tail high touchdown while reducing throttle to idle.
As for the aileron rigging, just a turn of the clevis makes for an easy adjustment to get the necessary wash-out in the wing.
I recently went against my usual policy while testing my son's Spitfire and did not seal all of the control surface hinge line gaps. What a major mistake. It almost cost me the model. After sealing all of the hinge line gaps the model flew as smooth and predictably as a trainer. Another good practice on a model with as small of a wing as the Mosquito!
Chris...
12-28-2010, 08:18 AM
#1218
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Dear Chris...
Yes I usually have the flaps deployed when I am landing my model. In the case of why I lost it, we had 25 mph crosswinds when the event started during the Air Show. Since we were flying at a county airport, take off and landing direction had been established by the air boss before we deployed our models. We could not land directly into the wind as it would have put our models at a 90 degree angle to the Airport's Runway and that is an absolute no no...!
As much trouble as I had getting my mosquito into the air, it finally overcame the winds and broke ground right before I hit the grass edge on the runway. Once airborne, she flew just great. After the event I made the error in NOT deploying the flaps to try and land the model in the direct cross wind with more airspeed. That was a mistake. I ran out of airspeed and like you noted, the model tip stalled and went down. Looking back on it now, I just would have flown the model at 1/3 throttle with the flaps deployed right to the runway. I mean we had 4000 feet of runway and I would not have overshot it by any means. Hind sight is 20/20 of course. Even though we were at this wide open space at the airport, you still felt the confinement of the model airfield and just didn't realize there is plenty of room to overcome mistakes in this enviroment. It was my mistake and I will learn from it, believe you me.
As far as you surface gaps go. I know exactly what you are talking about. My Japanese Twin Ace, (photo enclosed) had very bad gaps in the flying surfaces. My problem with this model is that I painted the "World Tek" white fabric covering with hunter green RustOleum spray paint out of a can. I could not seal the gaps because nothing would stick to the paint. I ended up using red 1/8 inch shrink tubing and gluing one end only of the tubing to the surface area with RC 56 canopy glue and a toothpick.
It workd out very well. You can see the shrink in some of the gaps shown here in the photo of the model. As the surface gap closes when the servo operates, the shrink tubing just flattens out flush with the control surface, and then expands again when it opens. I also used a lighter colored shrink tubing because if I had used black it would start to shrink when the sun would shine down on the model on hotter days and over the years the my gaps would start to come back again over time.
I have been flying this model with the red shrink tubing for 8 years now, and the gaps are still sealed.
On another note, I just finished editing my new video of my mosquito with the slow motion shots and hope to have it on YouTube this evening.
Take care,
David
Yes I usually have the flaps deployed when I am landing my model. In the case of why I lost it, we had 25 mph crosswinds when the event started during the Air Show. Since we were flying at a county airport, take off and landing direction had been established by the air boss before we deployed our models. We could not land directly into the wind as it would have put our models at a 90 degree angle to the Airport's Runway and that is an absolute no no...!
As much trouble as I had getting my mosquito into the air, it finally overcame the winds and broke ground right before I hit the grass edge on the runway. Once airborne, she flew just great. After the event I made the error in NOT deploying the flaps to try and land the model in the direct cross wind with more airspeed. That was a mistake. I ran out of airspeed and like you noted, the model tip stalled and went down. Looking back on it now, I just would have flown the model at 1/3 throttle with the flaps deployed right to the runway. I mean we had 4000 feet of runway and I would not have overshot it by any means. Hind sight is 20/20 of course. Even though we were at this wide open space at the airport, you still felt the confinement of the model airfield and just didn't realize there is plenty of room to overcome mistakes in this enviroment. It was my mistake and I will learn from it, believe you me.
As far as you surface gaps go. I know exactly what you are talking about. My Japanese Twin Ace, (photo enclosed) had very bad gaps in the flying surfaces. My problem with this model is that I painted the "World Tek" white fabric covering with hunter green RustOleum spray paint out of a can. I could not seal the gaps because nothing would stick to the paint. I ended up using red 1/8 inch shrink tubing and gluing one end only of the tubing to the surface area with RC 56 canopy glue and a toothpick.
It workd out very well. You can see the shrink in some of the gaps shown here in the photo of the model. As the surface gap closes when the servo operates, the shrink tubing just flattens out flush with the control surface, and then expands again when it opens. I also used a lighter colored shrink tubing because if I had used black it would start to shrink when the sun would shine down on the model on hotter days and over the years the my gaps would start to come back again over time.
I have been flying this model with the red shrink tubing for 8 years now, and the gaps are still sealed.
On another note, I just finished editing my new video of my mosquito with the slow motion shots and hope to have it on YouTube this evening.
Take care,
David
12-28-2010, 05:15 PM
#1219
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Dear Smokey, All
Finally have the new video of my mosquito in flight with the nacells mounted over the engines. My wife shot the video last July, but kept getting eaten by the mosquitos (no pun intended). So, a lot of the video was shakey at best at the normal speed, however when I slowed down some bits and pieces of it here and there and put it together it turned out pretty cool I think. I especially love the landing approach since my wife almost stepped out on the runway to get the shot. Hope you all like this one.
The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j-pCLKLqAc
David
Finally have the new video of my mosquito in flight with the nacells mounted over the engines. My wife shot the video last July, but kept getting eaten by the mosquitos (no pun intended). So, a lot of the video was shakey at best at the normal speed, however when I slowed down some bits and pieces of it here and there and put it together it turned out pretty cool I think. I especially love the landing approach since my wife almost stepped out on the runway to get the shot. Hope you all like this one.
The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j-pCLKLqAc
David
01-05-2011, 01:36 PM
#1220
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Smokey,
I just sent out you busted up Mosquito with the new packaging. I e-mailed you with all of the information. Let me know what to do next.
I will state it here again for our friends on this forum.
United Parcel Service has instituted new guidelines with the types of cardboard used to ship packages with. The China Model Products container that is used to ship the CMP Mosquito in does not meet the new guidelines set forth by UPS.
Smokey and I just had a round of UPS not paying for a damaged model shipped to Canada because the cardboard used to ship the model in does not meet their specifications. After explaining this to NitroModels / Raidentech, they would not reimburse or replace the damaged model. They said this is why they do not ship outside of the United States, but I explained that even if they ship it in the US, that if it is damaged, UPS will not pay damages now because the shipping container does not meet specifications.
Hence, my buddy was stuck with paying for and keeping a damaged model. It just isn't right, but that is the reality.
Another train of thought was to go ahead and pay insurance up front to cover shipping damages, but Nitro/Raidentech does not offer the option of paying for insurance on a model shipped from their warehouse. What is up with that? They are not paying for it. We are...!
I guess I have to wait and see what they are going to do.
I am still waiting for conformation from Raidentech / NitroModels (they are the same company) to see what they will do in the future when shippping their models locally here in the U.S. Will they cover damaged models in shipping or not? It would appear to me that since they use UPS to ship their models, that effectively UPS will not cover the damages to the model in the future. Just letting everyone know what is going on and to be aware of what happened with us trying to get the model to Canada. If I hear something from Raidentech, I will enter it here in this forum.
I have also attached UPS's letter about why they will not cover damages in a pdf file.
David
I just sent out you busted up Mosquito with the new packaging. I e-mailed you with all of the information. Let me know what to do next.
I will state it here again for our friends on this forum.
United Parcel Service has instituted new guidelines with the types of cardboard used to ship packages with. The China Model Products container that is used to ship the CMP Mosquito in does not meet the new guidelines set forth by UPS.
Smokey and I just had a round of UPS not paying for a damaged model shipped to Canada because the cardboard used to ship the model in does not meet their specifications. After explaining this to NitroModels / Raidentech, they would not reimburse or replace the damaged model. They said this is why they do not ship outside of the United States, but I explained that even if they ship it in the US, that if it is damaged, UPS will not pay damages now because the shipping container does not meet specifications.
Hence, my buddy was stuck with paying for and keeping a damaged model. It just isn't right, but that is the reality.
Another train of thought was to go ahead and pay insurance up front to cover shipping damages, but Nitro/Raidentech does not offer the option of paying for insurance on a model shipped from their warehouse. What is up with that? They are not paying for it. We are...!
I guess I have to wait and see what they are going to do.
I am still waiting for conformation from Raidentech / NitroModels (they are the same company) to see what they will do in the future when shippping their models locally here in the U.S. Will they cover damaged models in shipping or not? It would appear to me that since they use UPS to ship their models, that effectively UPS will not cover the damages to the model in the future. Just letting everyone know what is going on and to be aware of what happened with us trying to get the model to Canada. If I hear something from Raidentech, I will enter it here in this forum.
I have also attached UPS's letter about why they will not cover damages in a pdf file.
David
01-05-2011, 02:09 PM
#1221
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Meadow Lake,
SK, CANADA
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
David:
in hindsight, I don't beleive any model nor cardboard would stand up to getting crushed by a forklift.
I have just recently found out that there we're other products that came in on that same UPS shipment to meadow Lake, that we're damaged.
these we're computer parts, and they had been dropped.
I still havn't received my refund on the taxes and duty on the damaged one I sent back.
We'll see what Fed ex looks like when it gets here. and go from there.
again I apologize for all the extra trouble this caused you. However I am very grateful. thanks.
Rick.
in hindsight, I don't beleive any model nor cardboard would stand up to getting crushed by a forklift.
I have just recently found out that there we're other products that came in on that same UPS shipment to meadow Lake, that we're damaged.
these we're computer parts, and they had been dropped.
I still havn't received my refund on the taxes and duty on the damaged one I sent back.
We'll see what Fed ex looks like when it gets here. and go from there.
again I apologize for all the extra trouble this caused you. However I am very grateful. thanks.
Rick.
01-05-2011, 02:23 PM
#1222
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Smokey,
It is no trouble at all.... Did you get my e-mails. I just found out that my shipper has sent your broken model back to you "Express" and not "Ground" I am sure Fed Ex Ground will be certainly cheaper. The Fedex guy just told me you will get your model back in 2 or 3 days. I can tell you we really wrapped that box 2 and 1/2 times over. Let me know what to do next...?
I see NitroModels still has the kit for 199.00. Raidentech is selling it for $235.00. I don't understand that since they are one and the same company. I saw that they even have "refurbished" models available for $179.00, but they are out of stock...
It looks like that have taken several broken model kits and repackaged them as refurbished or complete unbroken kits.
The only problem with that is now the paints will not match, or the will not line up, if you have nacells from one kit and try and match it up to a wing from another and so on...
David
It is no trouble at all.... Did you get my e-mails. I just found out that my shipper has sent your broken model back to you "Express" and not "Ground" I am sure Fed Ex Ground will be certainly cheaper. The Fedex guy just told me you will get your model back in 2 or 3 days. I can tell you we really wrapped that box 2 and 1/2 times over. Let me know what to do next...?
I see NitroModels still has the kit for 199.00. Raidentech is selling it for $235.00. I don't understand that since they are one and the same company. I saw that they even have "refurbished" models available for $179.00, but they are out of stock...
It looks like that have taken several broken model kits and repackaged them as refurbished or complete unbroken kits.
The only problem with that is now the paints will not match, or the will not line up, if you have nacells from one kit and try and match it up to a wing from another and so on...
David
01-08-2011, 12:42 PM
#1223
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Meadow Lake,
SK, CANADA
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
ok here is some of the second and final flight of the Mossie, I didn't get the wreck on video, but got some of the aftermath. This is from trying to land low and slow with out flaps. Without flaps it just does not slow down worth a damned! It took three tries before I got it too slow and tip stalled it.
Enjoy.
Rick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkHI1Qy6JJI
Enjoy.
Rick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkHI1Qy6JJI
01-08-2011, 09:18 PM
#1224
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
Hey Smoky,
I know you had the crash and all, but that is the best take off of that model I have seen out of the grass. Wow you did an "excellent" job on a very realistic looking take off run. Very smooth. Very nice. Very slow lift off the grass, just like the real one.
You will get her in the air again realy soon....
By the way, where did you get your retracts and what kind are they? They seem to have really held up well during the take off out or the grass. They seem to be very strong and stable. I might be interested in going with retracts, if I can find any that can take the beating.
Please let me know
David
I know you had the crash and all, but that is the best take off of that model I have seen out of the grass.
Wow you did an "excellent" job on a very realistic looking take off run. Very smooth. Very nice. Very slow lift off the grass, just like the real one.You will get her in the air again realy soon....
By the way, where did you get your retracts and what kind are they? They seem to have really held up well during the take off out or the grass. They seem to be very strong and stable. I might be interested in going with retracts, if I can find any that can take the beating.
Please let me know
David
01-08-2011, 09:47 PM
#1225
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Meadow Lake,
SK, CANADA
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DeHavilland Mosquito
David, thanks for the compliments.
right at the end of that clip I did a barrel roll right over the camera man and he lost it. Then he got busy recording the other plane and missed my 3 attempts at landing with no flaps. bummer.
I got the original retracts with the model from General hobbies. cut the leg off short, and then put home built dual struts on it. They are sturdy but heavy. about 1 inch of travel, and too wide to even think about putting the retract covers on. Thus I was going to go with some split door's. I have the hinges now for the new one. spring open and a wire that hooks over the back of the wheel and pulls the doors closed when the wheels come up. I've also got some 3 1/2 inch P-51 style spinners and some pitts style mufflesrs that should help with reducing the added weights in the nose. Then hopefully I will have room for the Portable security cam. (9 volts). in the nose glass.
It will be sweet.
With the new one I will make a habit of landing it Hot, and so be it of I run out of room, nothing to hit but the grass at the end of the runway anyway
.
Rick.
PS If you want I can post pics of the retract set-up and of the new build as it comes along?
right at the end of that clip I did a barrel roll right over the camera man and he lost it. Then he got busy recording the other plane and missed my 3 attempts at landing with no flaps. bummer.
I got the original retracts with the model from General hobbies. cut the leg off short, and then put home built dual struts on it. They are sturdy but heavy. about 1 inch of travel, and too wide to even think about putting the retract covers on. Thus I was going to go with some split door's. I have the hinges now for the new one. spring open and a wire that hooks over the back of the wheel and pulls the doors closed when the wheels come up. I've also got some 3 1/2 inch P-51 style spinners and some pitts style mufflesrs that should help with reducing the added weights in the nose. Then hopefully I will have room for the Portable security cam. (9 volts). in the nose glass.
It will be sweet.
With the new one I will make a habit of landing it Hot, and so be it of I run out of room, nothing to hit but the grass at the end of the runway anyway
.Rick.
PS If you want I can post pics of the retract set-up and of the new build as it comes along?