|
RE: Lado retracts would you ?
[quote]ORIGINAL: LDM yes will buy from them , when Robart , Sierra , CJ or Shindin buys them and runs them like a real retract company [:D] [/quote] BTW: I was one of the original 20 to place an order for the much balliehoed Sierra '60 size' rotating retracts. After 6 months of broken promises and lack of communications (sound familiar?): I cancelled my order. It is my understanding that the original remaining customers finally recived their retracts about a year after the original promised shipping date. Which is probably why I showed a little more (than some) patience with Doug: he wasn't the 1st one who made promises he couldn't keep, and he wasn't the 1st to totally fail with communications with customers. I'm not suggesting that what Doug is doing is an OK way to run a business, but please don't mention Sierra when you suggest how a business should be run either. Maybe Darrell has his act together now, but I remember when he was running his business like Doug has been recently.
Posted on: 11/20/2009 5:08 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9268169
RE: Top Flite '.60 size' P-51D Mustang ARF: Building & Modifications
Oh Jeez, here we go again. First off, I agree with [b]800mZero[/b]: "....a fourstroke doesnt sound near scale either...", well at leat on 'liquid cooled/ inline engined aircraft'. I think 2 stroke engines sound more 'correct' on such aircraft. The 4 strokes sound better on 'air cooled/ radial engined aircraft'. I could add "just my opinion", but I know that I am not alone. 2nd, my 'Stang, for whatever reason has a noise which sounds very much like a RR/ Merlin, altho not very loud. Perhaps a combination of prop noise, coupled with the way my motor mount vibrates against the balsa cowl. Others have noted the realistic sound also, so again: I am not alone. Lastly, as most people 'in the know' are aware of: there are now sound systems avaiable which utilize samples from actual RR/ Melin engines to make make an electric powered aircraft sound FAR more realistic than any fuel powered version could. I'm thinking some of the 'glow boys' are feeling threatened by the recent, widespread use of electric power in larger warbirds. The times are a changing, so either be ready for it or get lost.
Posted on: 11/20/2009 3:52 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9267991
RE: 1/8 scale TopFlite Corsair Mods
Brad, so far it looks as tho you are doing a 1st class job on that Corsair. Now that you have the wings framed up, I hope you continue to keep it 1st class by doing the wing tips justice: the Top Flite plans are totally in-accurate, and I address that issue in the early posts, complete with scale drawingings, comparisons, and suggestions. In fact: even the Hangar 9 Corsair ARF wingtips are far superior to the Top Flite design.
Posted on: 11/20/2009 3:35 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9267956
RE: Lado retracts would you ?
I already have 1 set of his rotating retracts for H-9 Corsair, and consider them to be THE BEST option for the H-9 warbirds. But would I buy again? I plan to, WHEN he has what I want in inventory, and the all the commotion about over-due back-orders subsides. Great product, poor communications to customers, extremely delayeddelivery times, and in general: poor public relations.
Posted on: 11/20/2009 6:40 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9267023
RE: Top Flite '.60 size' P-51D Mustang ARF: Building & Modifications
[quote]ORIGINAL: Halequin Thx guys for the suggestions, I have read through the post for Jocks info on the 2 servo fit, thx mate. Could you give me a link or show a picture of where you placed the servos plz. Thx again. [/quote] My house is a mess: doing some re-modeling (installing hardwood floor in one room, re-carpeting another). As a result: I can't even get my planes right now, let alone take pictures. The 2 servos (which BTW, are HiTorque, low profile digital PROPTIONAL and metal geared) are monuted side by side, with a gap between them the same thickness as the center wing rib (which seperates them). Basically, I used the Top Flite parts that slide over that rib, and mounted a pair of plywood mouting rails to them instaed of using the Top Flite servo 'mount'. ALSO, by mounting the servo alonside the rib, rather than above it: I was able to mount them LOWER in the wing. Some have reported that the stock set-up has the servo mounted too high, which COULD cause binding. Since they are proportional: you can set the end points on them, rather than have to rely on precise mechanical adjustments. They also 'move' faster than a retract servo, so I suggest that if you do not have a transmitter which can adjust servo speed: use a pair of servo speed reducers. These are very light-weight and cost about $10 each: http://www.dionysusdesign.com/product_info.php/products_id/41 OR: http://www.dionysusdesign.com/product_info.php/cPath/29/products_id/164
Posted on: 11/16/2009 5:41 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9257102
RE: Top Flite '.60 size' P-51D Mustang ARF: Building & Modifications
[quote]ORIGINAL: Halequin ................... I would like a better retract servo to use preferably with all metal or carbon gearing and maybe any suggestions I would appreciate. Also I am looking into getting a set of Robart struts to install.............Thx for any help guys. [/quote] IF you have an extra channel, you might want to consider the 2 servo setup that I am using (read earlier posts).
Posted on: 11/15/2009 9:45 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9256430
RE: Top Flite '.60 size' P-51D Mustang ARF: Building & Modifications
[quote]ORIGINAL: Flight 21 .....................It is true that tipstall is something to be alert for, however it can happen with any engine. If a plane is balanced correctly the blame should really go on us pilots rather than the engine (I have gone down that way before too). Wed can learn to avoid tipstall with our flying tactics............................ [/quote] [quote]ORIGINAL: Flight 21 No I was not talking about prop tip stall, but rather wingtip stall. I was also speaking of how prop torque can make a plane more vulnerable to left side tip stall because of the added forces aiding the rotation (and of course the snap roll)......................[/quote] OK, I must seem pretty stupid for not realizing that when you stated "however it can happen with any engine", you were in fact referring to "prop torque". [quote]ORIGINAL: Flight 21 ..............I was also speaking of how prop torque can make a plane more vulnerable to left side tip stall because of the added forces aiding the rotation (and of course the snap roll). If a plane is not balanced correctly wingtip-to-wingtip, and is heavy on the left wing, it can make wingtip stall even more exaggerated. The article I referred to suggests adding extra weight to the right wingtip to counter the forces of the engine torque - thus providing a much more stable and better tracking plane in all areas of flight, but more specifically in torque effects and wing tip stall. Its a very interesting article - and I am thinking about re-balancing all of my birds according to the author's guidelines. To get an idea of how much weight to add to the right wingtip he provides a general formula of Weight (in ounces) = Engine Displacement (c.u.) x 2. [/quote] Actually: I read that ariticle, and I'm not buying into it. Sure, it may solve some problems when power is up and airspeed is low, but what about when power is low (as when: landing)? Since torque is practically non-existant under those circumstances, it would seem that adding weight to the right wing would cause it to stall first. Frankly, I'd rather 'wrestle' with torque after take-off than a heavy wing when landing. There are several ways to manage torque: 1) use less power 2) use more runway (let it build up more speed before lift-off) 3) Build aircraft with thrust offset. 4) rudder, rudder, rudder.
Posted on: 11/13/2009 3:49 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9251412
RE: New Drop Tanks, Bombs, etc.
[quote]ORIGINAL: glazier808 [quote]ORIGINAL: CorsairJock Top Flite has never produced a 1/7 scale Corsair. Their '60 size' kit(s) are 1/8 scale. Ditto on their P-47(s). Their Mustang is 1/7, and probably the P-40 also. That all said: it sounds like a good idea to produce these bombs in a scale that is between the two (1/7 & 1/8) [/quote] actaully they are marketed as 1/7th kits
Posted on: 11/4/2009 5:48 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9227084
RE: Building Top Flite Corsair 60
[quote]ORIGINAL: n6iap I know that this is an old forum but does anyone know where I can get this prop hub for the 60 size Corsair with a Saito 90R3? Thanks, jimm [/quote] http://www.tru-turn.com/
Posted on: 10/31/2009 5:31 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9217038
RE: 1/8 scale TopFlite Corsair Mods
[quote]ORIGINAL: Sandmann_AU ..............I've actually built my rudder as per your recommendations for strength and scale shape - are you telling me that's no longer the preferred method and I should rebuild it? Please let me know before I get to hinging it to the stab. Like Brad, I also fly off grass and if I'm going to experience frequent problems with broken counter balances after including your recommended modifications I might be better off chasing up the same kit Brad's using before I go to the trouble of fixing my current rudder to the stab....................................... [/quote] I don't consider myself a know-it-all, and I find that most people have their own way of doing things. I still prefer building rudders as I suggested in the early thread, and will continue to build mine that way. But that is NOT the only good way, as [b]RCGuy41[/b] has demonstrated: like my rudders, his are (a) sturdily built and (b) have correct outline. As for which one is studier: hard to tell. The key area for the added strength is from the top hinge to the top of the rudder, and I think mine (having carbon fiber strips also) is probably at least as sturdy as his. The reason why Corsairs need more rudder strength than other warbirds: 1) they are short nosed, meaning they are more vulnerable to nose overs. Landing gear malfunctions, 'varmit' holes in (grass) runways, any number of things (including pilot error) can cause one to nose over and end up on it's back. 2) the rudder is more exposed than other warbirds. On other warbirds, the FIN is more likely to be the 'point of impact' in the event of a nose over. Not so on Corsairs. Also, the Top Flite plans make it espesially weak in an area where it is likely to break. [quote]ORIGINAL: Sandmann_AU I'm also interested in your (or anyone else's) recommendations for covering material for this model, if you feel that fibreglass is too heavy. I'm using retracts for all three wheels with Sierra mains, and Robart 3.5'' wheels and tail retract, twin servos for ailerons as well as for flaps, and a 120 4 stroke engine (the plane was bought to suit an engine that I already had) so the weight's already getting up there and if glass is going to push that too far then something lighter might be preferable, especially as this would be the first plane I'd tried glass on - all my previous kits have been covered in monokote. [/quote] Up to this point, I have used iron on covering on all of my Top Flite Corsairs. The heaviest one that I have ever built is the one I have now: it is 9 1/4 lbs, BUT it has all 3 wheels retracting, funtional flaps, AND dual Vortac bomb drop mechanisms. The lightest one was 8 1/2 lbs, had 2 wheel retracts, but no operational flaps. BUT, I have re-finished a Hangar 9 Corsair: completely removed all covering and 'glassed the fuselage and center wing section. It is electric powered and it initially weighed less than 8 lbs WITH fuel (battery packs). The thing about 'glassing a plane: it CAN be done without adding weight (making it heavier than an iron on coated one). But many use too much fiberglass (either cloth too heavy or too many layers) and/ or too much bonding material, which results in a very strong but very heavy Corsair (these are the 12 lb + ones). I began a rebuild on my 9 1/4 lb Top Flite Corsair about 8 months ago. Then the flying season came along and the project was shelved. With Nov. looming, I will get back into it. Among other things: I plan to remove the UltraCote so I can 'glass and paint it. Since it was already finished as a genuine F4U-1D (no canopy braces, 2 bomb drops installed), I will refinish it in glossy sea blue, and model it after a carrier based Corsair once again (previously if was modeled afetr Herman Hanson's U.S.S. Bennington based Corsair): I'm leaning towards the ever popular U.S.S. Bunker Hill scheme. Regardless, I'll post progress here.
Posted on: 10/28/2009 7:47 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9208585
RE: 1/8 scale TopFlite Corsair Mods
[[quote]ORIGINAL: Sandmann_AU .......................... I hadn't seen you mention building the rudder in this manner, and everyone talks about this plane building tail heavy, so I thought I might be saving him from an unintended error. [/quote] For the record: I have built several Top Flite Corsairs, and not one of them has been tail heavy, even with re-inforced rudder and retractable tailwheels. You might be tempted to counter that statement by saying that I problably have heavy engines up front to counter the 'tailheavyness': NOT SO! I have never installed anything heavier than a Saito .82 on any of my Corsairs. Furthermore, I have never had to add weight to balance any of them. My current one balance just fine with the battery pack above the the wing, just aft of the leading edge. It weighs 9 lbs, 4 oz empty (no fuel and/ or 'bombs' and/ or 'drop tanks') That I have stated such in many times in the past, as well as in this thread, makes the use of the word 'everybody' totally inappropriate. Furthermore, I am not alone. In fact, I would wager that the vast majority of Top Flite Corsairs built are not tail heavy. The ones that are tailheavy typically have been fiberglassed (with too much 'glass and/ or epoxy) and are heavy all around (12 lbs or more). So, to sum up: [size=2][b]Top Flite '60 size' Corsairs are NOT usually Tail Heavy, and will NOT need nose weights to make them balance correctly.[/b][/size]
Posted on: 10/27/2009 9:11 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9206617
RE: 1/8 scale TopFlite Corsair Mods
[b]Sandmann_AU[/b], First off, he is doing the right thing by NOT using Top Flite plans for fin & rudder: Top Flite plans (red box, G.E., & giant scale) have in-accurate outlines, and therefor do not build into very scale looking parts. In my early posts, I provided a drawing with scale outlines (altho that is not the one [b]RCGuy41[/b] is using Second, he is obviously building for strength: something which is needed in rudders (and fins) for ANY Corsair (if you build it, it WILL nose over and land on it's rudder). The plans built Top Flite are are notably weak, and will break very easily at the counter-balance bottom line IF not built stronger. As for full scale ribs: yes, most of us build them so ribs will 'show', but I have seen some builders build them flat (as [b]RCGuy41[/b] has) and very artfully shaded in the rib lines. [b]RCGuy41[/b], Looking GOOD so far.
Posted on: 10/27/2009 5:35 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9205292
RE: Still waiting on the TF giant Corsair ARF!
[quote]ORIGINAL: LDM .........As far as the corsair , i have not heard anything but with the new ESM /Old KMP corsait at 74'' and at a cost of $300 , I dont know that I would release a 80 ''plus '' plane that will probably be in the area of $500 plus big ones [/quote] That, plus Top Flite will have to make a major re-design of their Corsair (EITHER one) if they want it to look as authentic/ scale accurate as that ESM/ KMP Corsair.
Posted on: 10/25/2009 9:47 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9201833
RE: Pin-up girl decals
[quote]ORIGINAL: Cobra99 You guys who mention making your own, what kind of paper are you using? I noticed some said water slide, but what about for using on Monokote? I'm working on a 40 size Mustang which will later be upgraded to a 1/5 scale Top Flite version, but for the Monokote I'm not sure how/if the water slide decals would work. [/quote] I didn't make this one (bought it eBay for less than $5), but the lady (not the lettering) IS waterslide on MonoKote, and so far no problems:
Posted on: 10/21/2009 5:53 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9190230
RE: Top Flite '.60 size' P-51D Mustang ARF: Building & Modifications
[quote]ORIGINAL: Mikecam I hated to do it but I mixed in some down elevator with the throttle. Mine only climbed under 3/4 and above throttle though. [/quote] I did same with mine, as I do with other planes. It's really not a bad thing, and certainly NOT an indication of it being tail heavy. If anything, it means that it could stand a little more downthrust, and/ or increase in wing incidence. But that is what is so great about modern programmable mixing: you already solved the problem!
Posted on: 10/20/2009 9:26 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9189468
RE: Top Flite P-47D Thunderbolt ARF .60-.91: Building & Mods
[quote]ORIGINAL: mogge .............................I did cheat a bit though. Along with lengthing the struts about an inch, I took a heat gun to the doors and bent them slightly to match the curve of the wing. I used very thin birch plywood around the round part of the wells to make a surface as well. I will get it all together hopefully this week and post pictures of the completed model. If anyone wants to lengthen the struts, what I did was use the insert that they give you for the piano wire and split it 70/30 on insertion (70% in the robostrut, 30% left for the extension). I then JB welded it all together and soldered it at the joint.......................[/quote] Hey, it looks liked it worked out really well. Curving the doors is a great idea, and thanks for sharing your methods. Not sure I am following you tho on lengthening the RoboStruts: what exactly are you lengthening, and which RoboStruts are you using (straight ones, OR offset ones)?
Posted on: 10/20/2009 3:52 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9188643
RE: Top Flite P-47D Thunderbolt ARF .60-.91: Building & Mods
[b]mogge [/b], VERY Nice Looking Setup, and kinda proves me wrong about the Robart wheels (but they ARE keeping the doors SLIGHTLY open). Great job!
Posted on: 10/20/2009 5:54 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9187462
RE: Gauging interest, Hellcat group build
[quote]ORIGINAL: Chad Veich .....................If anyone knows where to get 3 3/4'' or 4'' wheels with a thin cross section I would LOVE to hear about them! I'm using a 3 1/2'' Robart as shown in the pics and, as you can see, they look a bit small. Scale would be 4'' and I have a pair of 3 3/4'' Robarts but they are simply too ''fat'' to fit in the wing when retracted. If you look at the full size airplane you will see it has a pretty skinny tire and now I know why! They need to be no thicker than 1'' and less would be even better. Any and all input much appreciated. [/quote] Williams Brothers: http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXWAA0&P=SM Unfortunately, they are heavy and have no spoke design. I'm with you tho: been searching for years for the perfect wheels for '60 size' warbirds. Like you: IO would LOVE to see Dave Brown come out with a set of 3 3/4" wheels which have the same width as their 3 1/2" wheels, and/ or ANYBODY to produce a good scale looking set of 3 1/2" and/ or 3 3/4" wheels which are also fairly light weight AND have a narrower cross section then all the others. Those 3 1/2" H-9 wheels that you mentioned: are they the ones for the NEW Mustang? The older H-9 warbird wheels ( the ones that come with Corsair, Hellcat, and others) are 3 1/4", which are too small for any '60 size warbird. If anybody knows of the perfect wheel: please start a new thread about it, so ALL of us warbird 'nuts' can hear about it.
Posted on: 10/19/2009 5:45 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9184625
RE: best engine for TF P-51
[quote]ORIGINAL: ChuckW 2-stroke in a Mustang? That's gotta be some sort of sin if you ask me. I'd go with the 1.20 4-stroke. [/quote] Anybody who has ever heard/ seen a full scale Mustang will tell you that a 2 stroke sounds more like the high-pitched/ smooth running sound of a Merlin than a rumbling 4 stroke. On the other hand: I think 4 stokes are more realistic sounding in radial engined warbirds. But in my opinion, the "best engine for TF P-51": is an electric motor, since it allows the builder to keep that streamined cowl fully intact, with no mufflers and/ or engine jugs poking thru.
Posted on: 10/18/2009 7:16 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9183548
RE: Top Flite P-47D Thunderbolt ARF .60-.91: Building & Mods
[quote]ORIGINAL: NUMB LOCK .................I'm setting up RoboStruts as well on this...and have a quick question of the installation of the music wire into the RoboStrut 3/16'' adapter. When I insert my music wire into the RoboStrut it seems to stop about 90% into the adapter and doesn't go through the adapter's other end. Is this normal? In the photo of your RoboStruts (below), your set screw hole seems to be much further down which leads me to assume that your music wire has gone through the adapter. Is this correct?................Thanks, Bob I. [/quote] As stated in earlier posts: the stock struts are in fact 5mm diameter, which is slightly larger than the 3/16 dia used on Robart HD retracts, thus the 5 mm strut wires will not fit into the RoboStrut inserds unless they are drilled/ reamed out a little (difficult process), which is one of the reasons that why I am now recommending replacing the stock retrcat units with Robart HD mechanicals. In my case: I drilled the inserts oput with a 5.05mm drill bit, and they have worked out well so far. But like I said: it is a difficult process for most modlers. Also: I install the inserts as far into the strut as possible (instead of just inserting them flush with the top of the RoboStrut) to allow greater flexibility/ spring action of the wires. But be careful not to relocate/ move the plastic (nylon?) insert in the RoboStruts which retain the springs: doing so will cause the spring action (of the RoboStruts) to become stiffer. [b]Ron101[/b]: I also stated in earlier posts that it would be very difficult to install Robart, of ANY other wheels for that matter, because of clearance issuses. Most, if not ALL replacement wheels are wider than the stock ones, and there just isn't much room in those wells (even with some of the fiberglass removed) to install anything wider than the stock ones. I managed to squeeze a pair of Dave Brown 3 1/2" wheels into my wells, but only after I modified them by turning them down some on the edges.
Posted on: 10/18/2009 5:36 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9182112
RE: esm corsair retracts
Never heard of "esm" retracts, nor the Corsair. Perhaps you could tell a little about sizes (Corsair wingspan and/ or scale), and give details about the retracts (mounting dimentions, strut length, etc.)? Would be nice to have a web-link also. $140 sounds pretty cheap for a set of air operated rotating retracts with 'oleos', so what are the "mixed reviews" saying?
Posted on: 10/13/2009 5:31 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9168938
RE: Warbird Trainer
[quote]ORIGINAL: makmov IÂ wonder how there Hellcat comparts to the P-47 [/quote] I had the H-9 Hellcat: probably every bit as good flying as the P-47. In fact: I consider it to be THE BEST FLYING WARBIRD that I have ever owned. Only issue: the stock rotating retracts. They can be made to work if you are better than average at landing, AND hove smooth runways (grass OK, but not too many bumps and/ or varmit holes), but many, including myself, eventually replace the stock reacts with $omething better. ALL H-9 retracts are suspect, but at least the non-rotating retracts of the P-47 are more forgiving and cheaper to replace with an upgrade (Robart HD mechanicals cost about $35 a set).
Posted on: 10/11/2009 5:51 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9164461
RE: Anyone use carbon fiber rod instead of music wire with Robostruts?
[quote]ORIGINAL: NUMB LOCK Seems to be a great alternative... Thanks, Bob I. [/quote] "Great"? In what way? If it is lightness you are after, why not titanium? Altho I try to use CF materials when ever and where ever I can (control linkages, for example), I agree with others: bad idea for using as substitute for mounting RoboStruts, as set screws will cause it to splinter.
Posted on: 10/11/2009 10:34 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9163532
RE: Warbird Trainer
Hangar 9 has updated their '.40 size trainer' Mustang: now you can add retracts: http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=HAN4440 Also available in RTF version with 2.4 GHz system: http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=HAN4425 Even before the update, I considered that to be THE BEST warbird trainer. But if you really think there are too many Mustangs at the field already (as I do): a good P-47 is great choice. I have the Top Flite version, and it flies and handle much better than my Top Flite Mustang, but I'm thinking the Hangar 9 P-47 would be an even better choice (lighter, even easier to fly): http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=HAN2975 OR, there is an ever increasing number of electric powered 'foamy warbirds' available, which are very good looking, yet easy and inexpensive to. There, I've contributed to the monthly (sometimes bi-weekely) 'what is best warbird trainer' thread.
Posted on: 10/11/2009 6:32 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9163254
RE: TOE-IN OR TOE-OUT
[quote]ORIGINAL: warks62 On full scale they have toe out of about 1- 1 1/2 degrees. The idea is that if one wheel gets loaded with the weight on it then it will naturally pull the high wing down keeping from wanting to ground loop. Me or none of my friends with Warbirds ever do toe-in anymore either straight or slight toe out. I can only say what is working for us. Toe-in has always ended up causing us problems at least on our heavy models. [/quote] I agree: toe OUT is best. My theory: when landing, if a wheel touches before the other, toe out will cause it to pull towards the low wing, thereby bringing the high wing down. Toe in would be opposite: causing whichever side that touches down 1st to 'steer' towards the high wing, which magnifies the problem. In practice tho, I try to set mine with niether toe in NOR toe out. Maybe this should have been a poll.
Posted on: 10/7/2009 9:01 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9155064
RE: Wanted - Part drawing for wing b-25
You might also consider contacting Dan Gipe of Wing Mfg. I assure you: he will not bite your head off if you ask for his help. He could also supply you with any parts that may be missing.
Posted on: 10/7/2009 3:40 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9154318
RE: Warbirds Over Louisville - Oct. 3rd and 4th
I believe YouTube accepts '.avi' files, and I'm also thinking that is probably the best place to post them to. You can then provide links to them in this thread.
Posted on: 10/7/2009 3:38 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9154310
RE: Robart 615 Modification using KeenSerts: 1 problem solved, This Works!
Bump.
Posted on: 10/6/2009 5:52 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9150470
RE: H9-F6F Hellcat 60 ARF
[quote]ORIGINAL: Chad Veich The 615 Robarts will work, although some folks have reported issues with the side arms bending on those less than stellar landings. .......................... [/quote] [quote]ORIGINAL: chuck993 sounds like the 615s are a pain [/quote] [b]I've had great success with 615s, for many years on my Top Flite Corsairs, AFTER I performed a rather simple mod to them:[/b] http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1438302/anchors_1880453/mpage_1/key_Robart%2C615s/anchor/tm.htm#1880453 If you go all the way to the early posts in this thread, you will find that I used the long-ago-discontinued [b]Robart #102 mechanical rotating retracts[/b] in my H-9 Hellcat: turned out to be a VERY nice setup.
Posted on: 10/6/2009 5:29 AM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9150454
RE: 1/8 scale TopFlite Corsair Mods
I hope that you are going to modify the rudder, as suggested in some of the very early posts.
Posted on: 10/5/2009 3:41 PM by Author "CorsairJock"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9148757
|
