RE: Do ARF's Belong in Warbirds?
Gentlemen, Please, an ear. This has degraded from "is an ARF a Warbird?" (which is like asking "Is a kit a banana?") into ARFs vs. KITS. Let's back to the true subject. Is an ARF a Warbird? Help us all out. To answer this question, we must gather together and find the truth. Define "Warbird"" and you'll be a D*MN site closer to answering the original question: Has this been fun, or what??? [:D] Keep 'em flyin', boys!!
Posted on: 10/14/2011 9:56 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10766006

RE: Do ARF's Belong in Warbirds?
Let's approch it from a different angle for a moment. If I'm a millionaire and I go out and purchase a full-scale P-51 from trade-a-plane that was ground-up restored by a world-renown restoration facility and win awards in Oshkosh, am I flying a Warbird? Likewise, if I buy a beautifully constructed kit-built F6F Hellcat from an award winning model builder and fly it in Colorado or Delaware, am I flying a Warbird? IMHO, the definition of "Warbird" is any aircraft type that saw duty in an official military capacity, regardless of combat experience or "state-of-war" at the time of service. Or something to that effect. It has nothing to do with who built it or how it was built. I place myself at your collective disposal for chastisement, but MY favorite category was recently described by a brilliant fellow modeler as "BARF". The "bashed" ARF. The guy who strips his newly puchased F4U Corsair ARF to the bones, scales it up, glasses it and does a re-paint to make it one-of-a-kind. THAT'S for me, my friends! Don't tell ME it's not a Warbird! [;)]
Posted on: 10/14/2011 8:26 AM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10764931

RE: Another arf front cover
OUTSTANDING!! I owe you a debt of thanks for helping me with my identity crisis and I'll see what I can do to make BARF an official category for fly-ins everywhere. [:D] Keep 'em flying! Dave
Posted on: 9/22/2011 12:45 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10729238

RE: Another arf front cover
Guys, I need some help here. I'm not going to address the "AMA" thing as I like to go to fly-ins and many require it, right or wrong. I need help with a little personal identity crisis. I started modeling back in 1972 with a Cox PT-19 C/L trainer. Technically an "ARF". I enjoyed that so much I then continued into the '80's with some award winning Guillow's warbirds. Very definitely "kits". Then I graduated to R/C with a PT-40 trainer kit, followed by many Top-Flite warbird kits, again some award winners. Fast forward to the present day. I have MANY CMP and ESM ARF's. When I build these "ARF'S", I strip all the finish off the entire plane, fix and reinforce what is lacking, fiberglass the wings/stab, fabric cover the open flying surfaces and re-paint the entire plane after adding scale details and options. Now the kicker: I recently have begun to convert all my old and new aircraft from glow to electric power. Can anyone help me with the burning question "Who EXACTLY am I, a kit builder or an arf builder or what and when I go to a fly-in, does a completely re-fabricated CMP/ESM warbird compete in the "KIT" or "ARF" category"? All I know for sure, it's been a BLAST!! [;)]
Posted on: 9/22/2011 9:43 AM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10728816

RE: Royal P-38 Electric
Howdy, Electrifly has an awsome power system calculator on their website. Please don't take this as a brand endorsement, but the calculator is GREAT! You put in the lbs/prop size/amount of power/number of cells you want to put in a given plane and they give you their recommendations as to what you should be using. I find after flying a number of warbirds including a B-25 and Mosquito on electric power, that 100 watts per pound is a good place to be. No 3D verticals, but good, solid power on take-offs and half throttle flying. For a twelve pound twin, you'll need at least 600 watts a side to get what you're looking for. You can use the calculator and then apply the result to any comparable brand of electric motor. Good luck!!
Posted on: 7/21/2011 1:33 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "Glow to Electric Conversions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10632244

RE: ESM F6F
I would agree. I have built/flown a number of CMP warbirds from Nitroplanes and have no complaints, save they are NOT for beginning builders or flyers. They fly GREAT and are enjoyable to put together. Recently, I ordered an ESM Stuka. When I got it and looked it over, I ordered the P-47 and the P-39 as well. The fiberglass work IMHO is superior to what you'll find in the CMP versions. Overall apperance is slightly better as well. Worth the extra money by my standards. I ordered the retracts for the P-39 and not having a lot of experience with retracts, they appear quite sturdy. I will be flying from a grass field and plan to outfit my P-47 with retracts as well. The ESM manuals appear to be acceptable, but again, it's going to help if you've put together a few kits/arfs before. I expect they'll fly quite well with proper CG. Hope this helps and Good Luck!!
Posted on: 6/9/2011 1:49 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10565370

RE: nitromodels AT-6 Texan 160
Probably should have been a little more specific. That's an O.S. 1.20AX two stroke with a 16x8 prop. Apologies.
Posted on: 7/21/2010 3:11 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9879225

RE: nitromodels AT-6 Texan 160
I'm not well versed in retracts or 4 strokers, but I'm flying my CMP AT-6 at just over 15 pounds on an O.S 1.20 with a 16x8 two-blade prop. Not a screamer by any means, but good, solid control with enough power to do what you need to do with a WWII trainer. Hope this helps!
Posted on: 7/21/2010 2:54 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=9879189

RE: Recovering over exsisting cover
You can cover over old covering, but you won't be happy with the result. Just as if you are covering one color over another, you should be sure that the base covering is ABSOLUTELY free of fuel residue, dirt, etc. by cleaning with denatured alcohol or the like. I would only recommend this be done in small areas as in patching holes or tearing. The major problem is that the base covering may pull away from the wood when the top covering is shrinking and leave you with bubbles and loose patches. The other problem is that unless you are much more accomplished at covering than I will ever be, you end up with the top cover bubbling over the base covering and you end up with swiss-cheese while pin-holing the air bubbles out. My recommendation is to remove the old covering, sand the underlying wood to remove residue and smooth out imperfections, brush a coat of Balsarite on the wood to give the new covering some extra grip and re-cover. I do this with every ARF that I've ever built to make them personalized. Works great.
Posted on: 12/12/2008 5:35 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8239345

RE: Very Bad, CMP AT-6 Texan
I'll leave the Nitroplanes bashing to others, but I will say that using balsa of ANY thickness for a main spar is not a good design idea in any plane larger than a park-flyer. HOWEVER, I would like to thank you, Bruno, for using the forum for what it should be used for. Sharing experiences with fellow-modelers. I saw your AT-6 post about two weeks after I got mine from Nitroplanes. As I am only now about to start the build, I will be strengthening the main spar and ribs in any way that I can, including soaking the balsa with thin CA and hitting it with some zip-kicker. Re-glassing the center section is another consideration and being extremely aware to keep the plane well away from spectators while flying and keep the manuvers low-g until I do follow-up inspections after some flying time is also planned. Thanks again, Sir, for sharing your experiences and hopefully helping prevent further mishaps. Dave
Posted on: 11/28/2008 3:43 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "ARF or RTF"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8192072

RE: CMP BF109F BUILDING THREAD
I fly a number of CMP planes with an O.S. 120 AX and have had excellent results with all of them. I've used it on the Hellcat and Spitfire (both around 12 pounds) and also the Zero (around 13 pounds) with power to spare. Mind you, I'm not doing aerobatics beyond loops, rolls, split-s' and the like, but I really like the dependability and ease of the O.S. and it flies them well. I plan to use it in my new 109 when it's finished! [;)]
Posted on: 8/22/2008 8:30 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=7875258

RE: ---------Planes you would like to see back in stock-----------
Hey Nitrostaff!!! I read on another thread that you are releasing a BF109 "in the spring". Any chance of narrowing that down?? I HAVE been waiting patiently. As well, I read another request for a Stuka. I agree. One just like you have pictured on your website over the "Warbirds" category would be nice!! Looking forward to the 109, guys!! Thanks.
Posted on: 4/18/2007 9:50 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5737363

RE: WHEN IS THIS PLANE BACK IN STOCK???? ASK ME
Hey Nitroguys!! We were promised an ME-109 by late January. I've been waiting and recently bought an old Jemco kit 109 just to keep me happy until yours comes out. I already own seven of your warbirds, one more couldn't hurt!! Any updates?????
Posted on: 3/14/2007 7:57 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5561856

RE: ---------Planes you would like to see back in stock-----------
ABSOLUTELY!!! Right on the money. What better to go with the (hopefully,as promised) upcoming ME-109 release than a Nitroplanes 70-80 inch 120/140 size JU-87 Stuka!! Preferably with a reasonably scale rear gunner position and operational flaps. I've heard that 50 requests will get a plane done. While I can only promise purchase of one, please consider this fifty requests!!! :))) I have seven Nitroplanes warbird aircraft in my collection at this time and look forward to the purchase of one more before the ME-109 is released. With the 109, if you release a Stuka, that's three more. Keep up the good work. My retirement is all planned out for me!! Dave
Posted on: 1/27/2007 2:05 AM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5329544

RE: ---------Planes you would like to see back in stock-----------
As a PS to the last post, if the Nitroplanes people are listening, a 70-80 inch T-28 (flaps included/ARF/ARC/Leave the decals to us) for all us grass-field pilots would be a MAJOR release. Consider this another "FIFTY-REQUEST" plane!!! Dave
Posted on: 1/27/2007 2:01 AM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5329539

RE: ---------Planes you would like to see back in stock-----------
ABSOLUTELY!!! Right on the money. What better to go with the (hopefully,as promised) upcoming ME-109 release than a Nitroplanes 70-80 inch 120/140 size JU-87 Stuka!! Preferably with a reasonably scale rear gunner position and operational flaps. I've heard that 50 requests will get a plane done. While I can only promise purchase of one, please consider this fifty requests!!! :))) I have seven Nitroplanes warbird aircraft in my collection at this time and look forward to the purchase of one more before the ME-109 is released. With the 109, if you release a Stuka, that's three more. Keep up the good work. My retirement is all planned out for me!! Dave
Posted on: 1/27/2007 1:54 AM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=5329520

RE: ---------Planes you would like to see back in stock-----------
All of the previous suggestions are great and from your replies, you obviously listen!! How about this one? I'd like to see a .60/1.20 size ME-109. The flight lines and catalogs are full of Spits and Warhawks and P-47s and the like (and thank goodness they are!!) but find a decent larger version of the 109. Not at Hanger 9 (yet, anyway) or Tower or anywhere else! A large, scale, ARC/ARF ME-109 at Nitroplanes prices, HEAVEN!! :)
Posted on: 11/13/2006 9:57 PM by Author "rcfighterjock" in the forum "NitroModels Support"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=4992800