|
RE: I Saw it! TF 60 Size Corsair ARF!!!!!
[quote]ORIGINAL: SPLIT S Air tool oil won't hurt the o-rings? [/quote] Air tool oil is an ideal lubricant for O-rings made from synthetic materials. Air tools have synthetic material O-rings similar to the O-rings used in air retracts. The oil coats the surface of the O-ring, it will not cause deterioration of the O-rings, it is not absorbed by the synthetic material, thus the O-ring will not swell and prevent the retract pistons from moving. I have used the oil to stop leaking retracts since 2008 and have never had a problem with the retract O-rings since using the oil. Air tool oil is much cheaper to purchase than replacement retract cylinders or O-ring rebuild kits. Also, some of the Robart retract cylinders cannot be taken apart to replace the O-rings, this is mainly due to the ends of the cylinders having swaged end caps that do not unscrew. The retract cylinder has to be replaced with a new cylinder, which is very costly. Example: the ROB 605 replacement cylinder costs approximately $45.00 each. Roger
Posted on: 9/18/2012 11:05 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11232542
RE: I Saw it! TF 60 Size Corsair ARF!!!!!
[quote]ORIGINAL: SPLIT S Need some help from the Robart retract geniuses please. I have the 615 set in, won't hold air. Tested everything, found the leak in the left retract unit. Shaft leaks where it comes out of cylinder. Is there anyway to repair it, lube of some sort, something? Brand new, only thing holding me up from the maiden. The retracts themselves look kind of cheesy to me, has anyone else run into issues with them. Trying to quit smoking and run down an air leak at the same time is, well it's testing me. Help! Dan [/quote] Dan, the O-ring on the piston is more then likely dry and allowing air to leak by. I had the same problem with one of my Robart retracts. I fixed the problem with pneumatic air tool lubrication oil. Make sure the air pressure in the retract system is at zero PSI. Disconnect the two quick disconnects to the two MLG retracts, take a syringe and put a small amount of pneumatic air tool oil in the syringe. Inject a bit of the oil into the 2 air lines at the quick disconnects. You will see the oil in the tubing as it enters, you only require about an inch in length of oil showing in each air line. Reconnect the 2 quick disconnects, re-pressurize the system, now cycle the gear full up full down as many times as possible. When the gear will no longer cycle due to low air pressure, re-pressure the system again, and recycle the gear until the air pressure is too low to cycle the gear. Re-pressurize the system; take note of the air pressure PSI, leave the system pressurized for an amount of time that you feel is right, then re-check the air pressure PSI. The leak should have either stopped or at least slowed down. If the leak rate has slowed down, then inject more oil into the 2 air lines and repeat the process again. This procedure should stop your air leak if the faulty O-ring was only dry and not previously damaged, torn, cut etc. Let us know if this method solves your leak problem, and good luck be with you Roger
Posted on: 9/18/2012 8:01 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11232334
RE: top flite p-51 giant scale build
[quote]ORIGINAL: SportsFans Outstanding ForcesR! Nice job looks great. Mine is still in the box..just delivered Friday. Did you find your air? Cheers! Steve [/quote] Good day Steve, thank-you for the compliment; it took me 19 months to complete the build. I only worked on it from time to time, which is why the build took so long to complete. The air leak was very easy to locate and fix
Posted on: 9/18/2012 4:54 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11232144
RE: top flite p-51 giant scale build
I finally did the maiden flight on my kit built TF P51-D Mustang. The CG is at the recommended location, weight is 22 ½ lbs, power plant is Saito 4 cycle FG-36cc gas engine; prop is the recommended 18 x 8 for break in, rpm is 7600. The take off run was uneventful; I made sure I had good ground speed before I lifted off at ¾ throttle, then went to full throttle for the climb out and raised the gear. I didn’t require as much right rudder as I was expecting for take off. I climbed to approximately 300 ft and began to trim the aircraft. It took 4 clicks of nose down and 6 clicks of right aileron before she would fly level, hands off. What really surprised me was when I tested the flaps, ½ to full down; the aircraft didn’t pitch up or down, just flew straight and level. I did a few aileron rolls which were done in typical Mustang fashion. For the remaining 10 minute flight, I just did circuit flying with the throttle set half way between ½ and ¾. When the timer sounded I lowered the gear, on the down wind leg I lowered the flaps to ½ and on final I went to full flaps and set the throttle at 1/2 for a straight in landing. On landing, she sat down very nicely, the roll out was nice and straight. I wanted to get a second and third flight in, but due to a fairly large air pressure loss with the Robart gear, I didn’t want to risk it. Now I have to chase an air leak, but I am very, very happy with how the TF Mustang reacted and flew. A few speed freaks at the field said the FG-36 would not have the power to fly the P51. They have since changed their opinion, this was the first large scale TF P51D they have seen fly with the Saito FG-36cc installed. Just for information purposes, the TF build manual recommends a 30cc to 60cc gas engine to power the kit built Mustang. The Saito gasser provides adequate power for take off and scale flying. The engine worked flawlessly, is a breeze to tune, runs very smoothly and sounds great. Just don’t expect to do a large full loop with the FG-36 installed. Roger
Posted on: 9/17/2012 6:50 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11230981
RE: Saito gas engine mounts
[quote]ORIGINAL: corvettez06 I have an fg-17 and the fg-14b. I have the fg-17 mounted on a plane with a nylon mount because the metal mount included won't work unless I rebuild the firewall at a different measurement because the included metal mount doesn't allow for any adjustments. Is it okay to use these Saito gassers with a Great Planes nylon mount? Thanks, Jason [/quote] Jason, Saito recommends to the buyer to use the metal engine mount that comes with the engine because it helps to dissipate engine heat more efficiently then other types of mounts. If the Saito engine mount will not suit your installation, then you have no choice but to use a different mount. Just be aware that you may have to provide a larger exit hole in the engine compartment/bay for the hot air to escape after it passes through the engine cooling fins. Roger
Posted on: 9/13/2012 11:59 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11227432
RE: Saito FG-20
[quote]ORIGINAL: alan0899 G'day Mate, I believe Saito have released a new carby, to replace the one supplied with the FG20, contact HH for a replacement. I'm sure that will solve your problem. Cheers [/quote] Alan0899, thank-you for the advice; I contacted HH and they are sending me a replacement carburetor Now that's what I call outstanding customer service Roger
Posted on: 9/13/2012 10:37 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11227367
RE: Saito FG-20
I need advice on what to do next with my FG-20 to get it to run. I purchased the Saito almost 18 months ago and I have finally gotten around to do the break in. The low and high end needle settings are set as received from the manufacturer. The problem is I have fuel in the fuel feed line up to the carburetor but it will not draw fuel into the carburetor. If I add fuel manually into the carburetor, the engine will fire up on the second flip of the prop every time and run for 10 seconds or less until the fuel is spent. I removed the fuel tank from the aircraft and checked all fuel line plumbing, nothing kinked or pinched off. The inline fuel filter is not blocked and there are no air bubbles in the fuel feed line and the vent line is clear and open. If I remove the fuel line at the carburetor nipple inlet, fuel from the tank will flow freely I hope there is something simple I am missing to do to get the engine running I hate to have to send a new engine back to HH for warranty work Any advice on what to do next will be very much appreciated Roger
Posted on: 9/12/2012 10:51 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11226242
RE: Saito FG57 Fourstroke
[quote]ORIGINAL: Old Fart Hi mate thanks for the info,a fw190 sounds good but will have to wait till i crash this one first:) [/quote] Old Fart, I was just thinking out loud, the TF FW-190 with a FG-57 is what I am considering on purchasing as my next project aircraft Roger
Posted on: 9/11/2012 10:00 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11225123
RE: Saito FG57 Fourstroke
Good day Old Fart, I thought you might be interested in this info. I was at the flying field this past weekend when a visiting flyer showed up with a 1/4 scale Piper Cub powered by an FG57. It is the first time I have actually seen and heard the FG57 run. The sound from the engine is awesome, the Cub would lift off in less then 30ft and would go straight up without any effort, so I believe the Cub is slightly over powered Lol. It always started with just one flip of the prop and according to the owner he had 80+ flights on the Saito. He said since ownership, he has never had a problem with the ignition system or any other problem with the engine; it has worked flawlessly since new. After seeing how well the FG57 performed and the awesome sound it makes, I would not hesitate to purchase one for myself. I bet the FG57 would be an ideal engine choice for the new TF FW-190 ARF. Roger
Posted on: 9/10/2012 11:20 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11223909
RE: Saito FG57 Fourstroke
[quote]ORIGINAL: Old Fart Thanks roger,i saw that quite some time ago and hav'nt been back till now.Since then i've seen a lot of you tube vids in particular supermontana mike's who has this engine in an aeroworks? supercub.Very educational.Just looking for some varied feedback from those who are flying them and what they are flying them in as well.Also any maintainance issues they may have had.Cheers and thanks again mate. [/quote] Good day Old Fart, or is it evening in your part of the world? Just thought you would be interested in this info. There is a person named Kwik from Norway who has been having problems with the FG-57 ignition system, he is on his 3rd ignition systems in 40+ flights. He usually posts in the ESM 50cc Corsair thread. Roger
Posted on: 9/7/2012 4:57 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11220494
RE: Saito FG57 Fourstroke
[quote]ORIGINAL: Old Fart Hello guys,anyone here running one? would like some user opinions as mine is in the aeroplane but have yet to start it.Cheers. [/quote] Here is a link to a short thread on the FG-57T that may be useful to ye "old Fart"..Lol Roger http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10388091/anchors_10388548/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#10388548
Posted on: 9/5/2012 11:09 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218419
RE: top flite p-51 giant scale build
[quote]ORIGINAL: auggiedog has any one heard of someone flying this p-51 using a saito 2.2 four stroker with a20x8 prop. don'tknow if it is enough power sure would sound good. i would like to put the saito in a top flight p-51 arf!![8|][8|] [/quote] Here you are, a P-51D Mustang, 22.5lbs powered by a Saito 4 cycle gas FG-36. I have also seen a YA Spitfire, 24 +lbs powered by the FG-36. It flew scale speeds without any problems, just don't expect to make a completed large loop and the FG-36 does sound awesome. Roger
Posted on: 9/5/2012 9:50 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Giant Scale Aircraft - General"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218340
RE: TF FW190 GIANT ARF
[quote]ORIGINAL: Jeremy_D Bummer, they list the electric version on the FW page on the TF website as well but will be no good if it goes all the way up ROBQ2231 Robart Fork Electric Retract Tail Wheel [/quote] The ROBQ2231 Robart Fork Electric Retract Tail gear seems mighty expensive at $189.95USD. Gee I must be outta touch with the current prices, I didn't think it would cost that much just for the tail gear. Plus the ROBQ2220 electric main gear is listed at $461.99USD; total for both main and tail electric version is approximately $652.00USD. In comparison the ROBQ1658 pneumatic main gear is approximately $347.99USD and the ROBQ2220 mechanical tail gear is $99.99USD, total for both main and tail gear is approximately $448.00USD. It's time to crunch the available budget dollars. Roger
Posted on: 8/22/2012 11:57 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11202324
RE: TF FW190 GIANT ARF
[quote]ORIGINAL: Jeremy_D Bummer, they list the electric version on the FW page on the TF website as well but will be no good if it goes all the way up ROBQ2231 Robart Fork Electric Retract Tail Wheel [/quote] Jeremy D, just for information purposes, ROBQ2231 is not listed on Pg 4 of the assembly manual. TF will have to be questioned on this matter to clarify. Roger
Posted on: 8/22/2012 5:26 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11201912
RE: TF FW190 GIANT ARF
[quote]ORIGINAL: n8622t Anyone know why the retractable tailwheel option is the Robart 160 mechanical?? Jimmy [/quote] Yes, TF chose the mechanical retractable tailwheel to simulate the full scale retractable tailwheel, which did not fully retract into the wheel well. Using an electric or pneumatic retractable tail wheel allowed for full retraction of the tailwheel into the wheel well which would not be scale IAW full size FW-190. Roger Quote from the assembly manual. RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR The Top Flite Giant Fw 190A-3 ARF has been designed for Robart pneumatic and electric main gear retracts and mechanical tail gear. The tail gear on the full size Fw 190A-3 did not retract fully into the fuselage. To obtain the scale retraction of the tail gear, a mechanical retract was used. â�� (1) Robart TFFW190 Top Flite Giant Fw 190 pneumatic retractable main landing gear (ROBQ1658) â�� (1) Robart TFFW190E Top Flite Giant Fw 190 electric retractable main landing gear (ROBQ1657) â�� (1) Robart #160 retractable tail gear assembly (ROBQ2220) â�� (1) Robart #157VRX Large-Scale Deluxe Air Control Kit – includes pressure tank, air line tubing, variable-rate air valve, T-fi ttings
Posted on: 8/22/2012 5:15 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11201877
RE: Testors Dullcote
[quote]ORIGINAL: spec450 <!ssion da>I was wondering if i use Testors Dullcote on my H9 mustang, would the nitro exhaust mess with it. I'm trying to figure out a good way to add the weathering effect to my warbird. thanks [/quote] Spec450, Testors Dullcote will wipe right off if exposed to nitro/gas etc., heck it even spots when exposed to water droplets. Its only useful if you dullcote an electric powered aircraft, but you must avoid the dullcote being exposed to water/rain etc. Don't ask me how I know..Lol. Roger
Posted on: 8/17/2012 9:44 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11196891
New Saito 4 Cycle, Gas Engines, Radial 3 Cylinder FG-84 and Single Cylinder FG-40
Saito's new gas entry is on the way, 4 cycle gas, 3 cylinder radial FG-84. It also looks as if there will be a new 4 cycle, single cylinder FG-40 released too, its pictured just to the right of the FG-84. Roger http://images.rcmkt.net/2012shizuoka/2012shizuoka-0664.JPG
Posted on: 8/10/2012 9:30 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11188215
New Saito 4 Cycle Gas Engine, 3 Cyl FG-84
Saito's new gas entry is on the way, 4 cycle 3 cylinder gas radial FG-84. Roger http://images.rcmkt.net/2012shizuoka/2012shizuoka-0664.JPG
Posted on: 8/10/2012 8:39 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "Gas Engines"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11188163
RE: TF Spitfire build
[quote]ORIGINAL: prgonzalez WOW, It's been almost one year since I stopped working on my SF. Well, I am coming back to the build at a slow steady pace. I glued the FG fairings to the fuselage. Now, I wonder how to install the bottom part of the fairing at the back of the wings. I tryed the 1/16 balsa as recommended but I keep cracking the balsa because the way I am installing the piece creates a twist in the balsa. Also, I am trying with the balsa grain crossed, 90° of fuselage. Or maybe I need to wet the balsa first to make it more flexible. Am I doing this right? How did you do yours? Pedro [/quote] Pedro; the grain of the 1/16” balsa on the bottom aft portion of the fillet base should be parallel to the fuselage, meaning the grain of the balsa runs forward and aft with the fuselage. I am not sure why your FG fairing would cause the balsa to twist? When I installed the 1/16” balsa on the bottom aft fillet base; the balsa installed almost completely flat with a very slight curve when joining the fillet base with the fuselage. Roger
Posted on: 8/3/2012 6:48 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11179509
RE: Top Flite Giant FW-190?
Cocobear; can you give us a hint if TF is also considering releasing a giant Spitfire in near future I have the TF giant P-51, Corsair, and the .60 Spitfire, and I will purchase the FW-190. I would really love to get my hands on a giant TF Spitfire to add to my collection of WWII fighters Roger
Posted on: 7/23/2012 8:28 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11165718
RE: GROUP BUILD - Top Flite Giant Scale F4U Corsair
[quote]ORIGINAL: ply68 Thanks for the info Bob. I don't have any experience with multi cylinder engine but do you think the O.S. FR5 (5 cylinder 50cc) engine is capable of pulling the TF Corsair? BTW, the engine weight 5.8lbs which is a bit heavier than the average 50cc gas engine which only weighs 3 lbs. It can swing a 22x8 prop but based on what I've read online, people are saying it produces the equivalent power of a 45cc gas engine. Do you think this is enough power to fly the TF Corsair? Thanks ply68 [/quote] Ply68, the O.S. 300 5 cylinder radial produces approximately 4hp. This is just my oppinion, I predict It will have the power to fly the Corsair Ok, how well it flies will mainly depend on how heavy the plane weighs in at. A fellow flyer at the field has the giant ESM Corsair, same WS as the TF. The ESM weighs in at just under 29lbs. He has an Evolution 77cc 7 cylinder glow radial installed, it produces approximately 4.8hp, it flies the ESM Corsair well. Roger
Posted on: 7/13/2012 11:29 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11153969
RE: Starmax warbirds
YAT-28E, the Starmax P-51D is fairly scale looking except for the 50 cal machine gun barrels. It will require 4000mah to 5000mah batteries to have decent flight times, (5 to 6+ minutes). The weak point with this EPO foam aircraft is the landing gear and how it’s mounted. A lot of the owners have replaced the landing gear with after market gear, E-Flites etc and how they modified the LG mounting. Once the modifications are completed, this P-51D looks stunning and is a dream to fly and land. Here is a link to the Starmax P-51D thread, Electric War birds on RC Groups.Com. Read through the thread before you decide to purchase the Starmax Mustang. Roger http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1377310&page=224
Posted on: 7/3/2012 5:10 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11141007
RE: Spitfire Brotherhood (All Spitfires Welcome)
[quote]ORIGINAL: markhamregular Lifer, I have a couple of retract servos I can use, but aren't they 180 degrees. Those flaps can barely go 45 degres. And the retract servos are not programable in order to reduce the travel. How do you make it work? Thanks, [/quote] Harry, what brand of transmitter are you using? You should be able to adjust the travel of the flap servo in the flap section set up. My JR and Spectrum TX's allow me to adjust the travel of the H9 Spitfire flap sevo from full up, mid (half flap 1/2 inch) and landing (full flap 1 inch). I have never used a retract servo as a flap servo so I am not sure if the retract servo's travel can be adjusted in the flap section set up. Roger
Posted on: 6/22/2012 4:57 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11127492
RE: Spitfire Brotherhood (All Spitfires Welcome)
[quote]ORIGINAL: markhamregular My H9 Spitfire 60 was built with flaps, but I have nothing but trouble with them. Servo is always buzzing and when not used the plane has a rattling noise in flight. I have tried everything to loosen them but I just can't. I would like to just eliminate them, since they are not necessary anyway. Would it be OK to just epoxy them? I am fairly new to this, and I don't want to create a new problem. Thanks, Harry [/quote] Harry, does the servo buzz with the flaps full up or full down? What do you mean by loosen them? Without the linkage connected to the flaps, do they move freely by hand without any binding? If you don’t want to use the flaps, no need to epoxy them, just leave them in the full up position with the linkages and servo still attached and just disconnect the servo wire from the receiver. You may want to trouble shoot the problem with the flaps sometime in the future, non flying season "winter"? Roger
Posted on: 6/21/2012 11:58 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11126794
RE: Why not transport your fully assembled aircraft to the field?
[quote]ORIGINAL: Me410 I have transported my 60" and 70" warbirds assembled with the retracts up. The plane sits in a 2 x 4 cradle I built and the plane is held to the cradle with bungy cords. I do travel 60MPH for about 10 miles. I have never had a problem , but now I am thinking , just how much turbulence is there when the plane is low in the box. My new 2011 1/2 Ton Chev truck has a deeper box than my old chev. The wieght of the cradle seems to secure the plane ok. But again, I don't know how strong the forces are on the floor of the box? I know, I know, buy a canopy or box cover, and I think I will soon. But my question is, how bad can the air flow be on the truck box floor? Thanks Tom [/quote] Me410, as long as you do not exceed 105kph, the cradle is secured safely in the truck box and the aircraft is safely attached to the cradle, then you will have no problems with transporting a fully assembled aircraft. Keep your speed below 105kph; this will ensure you are well below the envelope where wind turbulence in the truck box will not introduce wing or horizontal stab flutter. Flutter is what causes catastrophic internal structural failure of the wing and or horizontal stab. If you drive at an excessive speed you will enter the envelope where excessive wind turbulence over the cab will drop down onto the wing. The wind turbulence will then travel rearward along the upper surface of the wing until it drops off at the rear of the wing and onto the truck bed floor; there it is redirected forward and upward on to the bottom surface of the wing. With the excessive wind turbulence acting on the upper and lower wing surfaces simultaneously, the wing is forced into a rapid forward and aft twisting motion, known as flutter. This flutter will be heard as a high pitch buzzing sound and will destroy the internal structural support of the wing in a matter of seconds. I have been transporting fully assembled aircraft in the back of my pickup to and from the flying field for well over a year with no problems. I never exceed 105kph (65mph), and the distance I travel each way to and from the flying field is 48km or 28 miles. Just about any cargo can be safely transported; if you do your homework first, understand the do and don’ts, and of course mitigate and accept the risks involved. This will be my final post on this issue. If I would have known what a hornet’s nest I was stirring up, I would never have posted in the first place. Hopefully this thread will now just die and go away! Roger
Posted on: 6/21/2012 7:20 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11126445
RE: Top Flite P-51D ARF, How is it?
[quote]ORIGINAL: acdii I gave up trying to run the DLE20 on the Dewey, too much power, even though its a big plane. The other suggested planes that can handle the motor are discontinued except for one, and I dont like the looks of it. If I dont like how it looks, I wont like flying it. So I thought, well the who reason I got this motor is to put in the P-51 I am building, but its a scale plane with a LOT of work going into it, and I want to make 100% sure the engine wont be a problem when I maiden it, so I am going to fly it on another lower end plane until the Stang is ready. So, thought about the Hanger 9 Blue Nose, read it has issues, some people have none, others its a handful. Some replaced the H9 with the Top Flite. Price is about the same between the two, and since the one I am building is the same scale, it would be perfect to get. So with the DLE20 in it, how has it held up? Any problem with the stock retracts? I will be flying off grass with it. Is there an alternate muffler I should use? And will the S3004 Servos be sufficient? [/quote] acdii, your questions can be answered by reading through the thread on the TF P-51D; DLE20 installation info can be found on page 79. Roger http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_7520206/tm.htm
Posted on: 6/19/2012 7:31 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11123659
RE: Why not transport your fully assembled aircraft to the field?
Darn want a be engineers were right, wind turbulence finally ripped the wings off
Posted on: 6/15/2012 11:29 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11119352
RE: Why not transport your fully assembled aircraft to the field?
[quote]ORIGINAL: ESSAR Nice technique roger! [/quote] Andrew, looks as if I have opened a Hornets nest with this post I didn't realize how many Aerospace engineering experts visited these sites Roger
Posted on: 6/14/2012 11:30 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11118172
Why not transport your fully assembled aircraft to the field?
I finally solved the problem of transporting, assembling and disassembling an aircraft at the flying field. This method also gets a lot of thumbs up from passerby’s while on the highway Roger
Posted on: 6/14/2012 10:23 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11116763
RE: Why not transport your fully assembled aircraft to the field?
? The only drama I could see on ForcesR's setup is that the outboard sections of the wing
Posted on: 6/14/2012 6:34 AM by Author "ForcesR"
in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11117851
|
