RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I would scuff and paint the spinner. A polished spinner just does not look right on a 109F. Paint some cool spirals or a black and white scheme on it and you'll love the look when it is fired up.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 3:40 PM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9260607

RE: 2008 the year of the Turbinator
I'm switching mine to split flaps. I like the drag they provide and I am familiar with how they feel. I mentioned I'd drop some photos of my modified turbinator and here they are. First you can see the significant change in the look by moving the canopy and rounding the plane out. I still have to add some balsa to the bottom to give it the proper look. Once I get the fuse done I'll sheet the wing and get the scoops put on it. I'm modifying the scoops quite a bit also. I moved the wing up 1/2" into the saddle which will allow me to bring in some of the air under the wing in a belly pan. Some of the air will still go over the wing (as per original). As you can see in the rudder photo I have shrunk the vertical stab and rudder quite a bit. I provided the stock rudder profile for comparison. I'm confident my rudder will be plenty to keep this plane stable. I hope to have it finished before spring, so I'll continue to post some progress photos.
Posted on: 11/17/2009 8:50 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9259826

RE: 2008 the year of the Turbinator
I'm busy on my Turbinator (full size). I have made many mods since mine will look like a semi-scale TS-11 Jet. So far it is going well. Some of the mods include moving the wing up into the fuse 1/2", shrinking the rudder a bit, and rounding everything while adding a much changed canopy. I'll try to drop some build photos so everyone can see the progress.
Posted on: 11/16/2009 12:46 PM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Jets"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9257774

RE: CMP Hellcat
A Saito 1.50 is plenty. I have a 1.20 in mine and it flies fine.
Posted on: 11/2/2009 9:59 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9222222

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
As I mentioned in earlier posts, the shorter gear is not all bad. For one thing longer gear puts the wheels even further out into a wing that is already a tight fit for wheels that look anywhere close to stock. The shorter gear is also less prone to ripping out of the wing and makes the plane ground handle better. Adding wheel pants is a must, because it makes the plane look much better on the ground than having two skinny struts. It would be a shame to put some nice long scale looking gear on the plane, then use tiny little wheels that look totally non-scale. My Sierra gear has worked flawlessly without any problems, and I'm glad I got it.
Posted on: 10/26/2009 11:22 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9203031

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
The amount of torque effect (actually caused by prop thrust on the rudder, not engine torque) will vary based on the angle of attack the plane has. With taller landing gear, the affect is made stronger as you try to pick up speed, once you get the plane level on the mains the amount goes down. If you jump up into the air and climb out steeply with full throttle it is once again very strong. I have not had much problem with 109. The long tail moment seems to be a benifit. I very seldom use full throttle to take off which can also help. As for putting weight on the wingtip, I have never heard of that before and would think the affect it would have to nuetralize torque effect on take off would be minimal.
Posted on: 9/22/2009 8:28 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9114779

RE: Northern Alliance Military Fly-in - Owatonna, MN 8/8 thru 8/10
I saw the video team too, I seem to remember the camera said FLY RC on it.
Posted on: 9/21/2009 8:56 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9111855

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I look at these cheap planes as some raw material, not a finished product that is ready to assemble. Those who blindly use all of the pieces provided and expect no problems could be in for a suprise. Many tend to put on more power than what is recommended which can amplify the problems. I never intended to use the cheap plastic spinner from the start. I still have it sitting in my shop. As they say, you get what you pay for. As some of you have stated, it would be better if they left the cheap junk out of the box and reduced the price by a couple of bucks.
Posted on: 9/21/2009 8:49 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9111837

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
Depending on which gas engine you choose, it could be an option. The EVO 26GX weighs about the same as my OS 1.60 (add a few more ounces for the ignition unit and battery). I could see one of those working. The Zenoah G26 (engine only) on the other hand weighs about a pound more. You would have a challenge ballancing the plane with the extra nose weight using the Zenoah. The extra weight of the ignition on the EVO 26 would be countered by a need for less fuel. In reality you would likely run the same size tank, but would get longer run times. Power would be quite a bit less than the glow motor, but I normally run around at 1/2 throttle anyway to save fuel (and the plane will fly at 100mph at half throttle). I doubt the EVO 26 would vibrate any more than the same size glow engine. So to clarify I would say a light gasser should work just fine. As for flying fine at 17.5 lbs, it might. I for one would not like landing the plane at that weight unless I had a fairly long and smooth runway. I take off at about 16 lbs, but with the fuel burn I land at closer to 15.
Posted on: 9/2/2009 8:38 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9063917

RE: Albatros D.III Build along
Since we had a 25mph cross wind, a few were surprised that I would even fly the WW1 bird. When I kick the YS1.10 up to full boost it leaps off the ground in a few feet. Nice to have the back-up power on a windy day.
Posted on: 8/27/2009 12:05 PM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9049379

RE: Albatros D.III Build along
I use a remote glow for normal starting, the removable part is for taking the glow plug out when needed. Also, on a very hot day I have the option of leaving the dummy engine off to get a bit more cooling air over the engine. A couple more in flight shots from our recent Warbirds over Iowa event:
Posted on: 8/27/2009 10:15 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9049129

RE: Albatros D.III Build along
I solved the glow plug issue by making my dummy engine removable. It has a clip in the back and velcro in the front. I had been pulling it off for flight to aid cooling, but a recent flight with it installed did not present any problems.
Posted on: 8/27/2009 9:40 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9049066

RE: Albatros D.III Build along
You must plan on building it pretty scale if your worrying about the aileron wire. I just wrapped it and run it up with the plugs up near the top wing. If anyone asks I say it is the radiator hose since it is close to the scale location for the rear one. There were two hoses on the real thing, but I did not build a scale front hose. The wing sits so low that nobody ever sees the wire anyway. It's been a while since someone has posted, good to hear there is still some Albatros action out there.
Posted on: 8/27/2009 8:43 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Scale Aircraft"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9048972

RE: Mosquito Retract Help..
Mustang spinners don't look too bad. I too used the Robart "forked" struts. Stay away from the spring down Robarts, they don't have enough power to get it back up without additional exterior springs added. The forked struts work OK, but they bend easy (ground loops are not uncommon with this aircraft). I need to make a brace to strengthen them. Anything with actual dual struts will create a large hole in the bottom. Gear doors are a lot of work, and would add weight. There is another post about the CMP mosquito with a ton of information.
Posted on: 8/26/2009 12:19 PM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9046629

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
No Flaps, I would say any gas engine is a bad fit for this plane (unless it is really light). Even with an OS 1.60 I had to move the battery back into the tail. I don't remember seeing anyone who has flown a gas engine, did I miss the post?
Posted on: 8/25/2009 8:53 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9043161

RE: Northern Alliance Military Fly-in - Owatonna, MN 8/8 thru 8/10
I had a good time. Great turn out and some awesome planes for sure. Hopefully the wind gods will be nicer next year.
Posted on: 8/11/2009 10:34 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9007380

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
My CMP Bf-109 flew well at WARBIRDS OVER IOWA held at my local club field. The weight of the 109 was helpful as winds gusted to over 20mph. Even with the wind I used flaps to land or the 109 would refuse to slow for landing. The Sierra gear looks small, but it sure absorbs the landings without complaint. Here's a photo of it flying at the event.
Posted on: 7/28/2009 11:39 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8970628

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
The Sierra gear is a bit short for scale since it was made to drop right into the original location. It looks close enough for me and allows the plane to handle well on the ground. If the gear were any longer the wheels would have to be even farther out into the wing, not good since there is barely enough room as it is for a decent sized wheel. Adding gear doors helps make the gear look more substantial.
Posted on: 7/17/2009 8:24 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8940606

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
khurlimann, Nice job. It will look really sweet when you get some larger wheels on there. I noticed your paint looks somewhat glossy. I use minwax polyurethane (satin finish) and it gives the plane a more realistic dull topcoat. It is safe over any paint or graphics I have found and it is very fuel proof.
Posted on: 7/16/2009 2:03 PM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8938573

RE: Need Info on CMP .40 size ZERO
I had to look way back to post #89. I believe my CG was 92mm, and it has always flew good so I don't think I adjusted it. The only reason mine jumped into the air was due to the horizontal stab, it needed down trim since it is a bit off relative to the wing. The wing incendence relative to the thrust line was good though. I lined my engine up with the firewall, no thrust corrections.
Posted on: 7/8/2009 8:25 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8915685

RE: Need Info on CMP .40 size ZERO
Joe, since your flights have been short I would not yet make any big changes. I'm wondering why it jumped up into the air on the second take-off since you had it trimmed after the first? Remember to back off of the elevator as you get moving on the roll out. I have no down thrust in my engine and the plane tracks great at all speeds with little trim adjustment. On this plane I have found that a good CG point is where it takes just a bit of down elevator to fly inverted. Next time you get it into the air flip it over and see what you have.
Posted on: 7/7/2009 8:45 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8912972

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
Paladin, what did you do to add all the weight to your plane? 18.5 lbs is awful heavy for the wing area it has. It will fly, but it won't fly slow. You'll have to come in fast and allow plenty of time to build speed on takeoff. Sethorion, I would not think that moving the gear would be worth the effort. It will make the plane ground handle worse, and you would have to completely change the wing structure to get the gear mounted farther inboard. The gear is not halfway down the wing, but it is a bit farther out than the real thing. Getting the gear long enough and the wheels big enough will also be hard. I think the gear looks pretty good at the field, and I haven't had any comments about the stance being too wide.
Posted on: 7/7/2009 8:32 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8912954

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
A 1/6 scale pilot seems to be about right. I used a cheap $6 version from hobbyking and painted it with some german uniform colors. Turned out to be a good fit.
Posted on: 7/6/2009 8:28 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8910211

RE: Des Moines warbird fly-in this weekend (June27-28)
I'd like to make it too, but I have another local event on Sunday. Hopefully the wind forecast will improve for you. Swede5, hope to see you at the Skyhawks warbird fly-in this year. Maybe this photo looks familiar to you?
Posted on: 6/24/2009 11:18 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8876989

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I made my own adaptor for the Platt spinner. Used a stand off and a bolt. The stand off is machined so it fits right into the two part nut that came with the OS 1.60. It turns true and has given me no problems. My tailwheel is from Hobby King for about $6. It's a bit stiff as I mounted it but works fine. I could have used some tail weight, so a retractable tail wheel would not have been too bad, I just didn't want to mess with it.
Posted on: 6/9/2009 8:30 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8837802

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
After quite a few flights I now feel very comfortable with the way my BF109 flies and it is one of my favorite planes to take to the field. I did a bit more beefing up of the engine mount area and had to add a bit of lead to the tail to compensate, but other than that there has not been much I had to do. I have found that the full "air brakes" are often needed to slow the plane up unless I have a pretty good head wind. I have yet to get it on the radar gun, but I would guess it flies at about 120 mph wide open. Since I used the stock tank I don't have a lot of fuel for the 160FX, but I find that half throttle provides plenty of speed with the 17X10 prop. Here are a couple of recent photos a freind took yesterday.
Posted on: 6/8/2009 10:18 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8835053

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I have no problems with inverted four strokes. Try to get the tank mounted low so you don't have a big pressure difference. If the tank is high in relation to the carb you can still get good performance, just set the needle on the rich side for the beginning of the flight so the engine will not lean out as the tank goes down. Four strokes can run a bit rich and not die, unlike two strokes that may load up on you.
Posted on: 5/22/2009 9:12 AM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8789701

RE: Warbird paint
I forgot to mention the Polyurethane works great over decals too. Here is my CMP BF109 with some additional decals and colors added over the stock paint, then used Polyurethane to blend it in.
Posted on: 5/15/2009 2:08 PM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8771472

RE: Warbird paint
I use about any paint since I clear coat with Minwax Polyurethane (Gold can, not the water based). It goes over anything and is more fuel proof than Lustre coat or anything else I have found (Nitro fuel, I don't know about with Gasoline). The clear satin is fairly flat. It can yellow a bit over time, but actually seems to add a bit of realism to warbirds when it does. I can use any paint underneath (even testors scale colors) which opens up many options when hunting for the right color at the store. Here's a photo of my CMP Hellcat. It is totally repainted with Testor's colors, than cleared with the Polyurethane. About 4 years old and it still looks great.
Posted on: 5/15/2009 2:03 PM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8771460

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I never perform those "taxi" tests. When the conditions are right I take off and fly on my first run up. I did notice that it will jump off the runway early, but I have always had plenty of power to pull it out of it. Now that I have it trimmed I do not have that problem too often. I did use the supplied fuel tank. My engine is still a bit rich so I'm being careful on the run time. I can get 6 min. with quite a bit of fuel left. I'd say about 7 min. may be my timer setting once I get the engine set right. Keep in mind with a OS 1.60 and a 17X10 prop it flies very fast at half throttle, so I do not figure I'll be wide open for much of the flight. I never like long flights anyway. I usually take 4 or 5 planes at a time so I want to put something else up.
Posted on: 5/13/2009 5:04 PM by Author "Hot Rod Todd" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8766282