FlightLineRC P-38L LIghtning Pacific Silver

You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments

Register now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Official FlightLine RC 1600mm Spitfire Mk. IX Thread

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Ole-Timer View Post
    The black basing worked great for the weathering on your Seafire. She looks like a perfectly dirty little girl. Beautiful job LB!
    O-T, You crack me up, that's an order. Best, LB.............and thanks.
    Captain: Got any ideas?
    F/O: Actually not.
    — Captain Chesley B 'Sully' Sullenberger III and F/O Jeff Skiles—

    Comment


    • Hi Guys. Just got mine from Motion RC. Looking forward to this build and flying her. Great model with heaps of helpful support on this forum.
      I've noticed that owners are trimming significant up elevator into level flight, I wondered why? During assembly, I checked the horizontal stab for incidence. It appears to have -2.5 degree built into it in relation to the wing. I gather this is intentional, but wonder why it is necessary. Over the length of the tail plane assy (180 mm), this contributes to considerable down deflection. Alpha, can you enlighten me on this? I was expecting maybe 1/2 deg pos incidence on the wing and zero on the horizontal stab. I haven't glued the tail assy to the fuse yet, so can make mods if required.

      Comment


      • Wow..........................the new member of the Flightline family seems to be getting all the attention..............................anyone able to contribute on this subject?

        Comment


        • I am sure this has been discussed but is a 5000mah pack okay for this Spitfire or will it be too heavy?

          Comment


          • Arnie, I haven't checked the incidence and have not done the maiden, so I can't comment.... Tony, the 5000 is recommended and is supposed to balance fine. Mine does.... Hope this help a tiny bit!! Merry Christmas!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by TonyGagJr View Post
              I am sure this has been discussed but is a 5000mah pack okay for this Spitfire or will it be too heavy?
              5000 is great! All the way forward!

              Grossman56
              Team Gross!

              Comment


              • Great, thank you!

                Comment


                • Cheers Hardway. These planes obviously fly well, but I'm concerned that this amount of incidence will influence already tricky takeoffs and landings. I realise all spits have these problems, but don't want to make them even harder. Just a reason from the manufacturer for this incidence would be re-assuring.

                  Comment




                  • Originally posted by Arnie View Post
                    Cheers Hardway. These planes obviously fly well, but I'm concerned that this amount of incidence will influence already tricky takeoffs and landings. I realise all spits have these problems, but don't want to make them even harder. Just a reason from the manufacturer for this incidence would be re-assuring.
                    Arnie,

                    I can’t answer why the incidence is off on the tail plane but having many flights on both my Spitfires I can state the following, and this will also help Tony out on his battery question of weight. I fly with 8000mAh batteries positioned at 1/4 inch back from the full forward position. I’m comfortable with the entire flight envelop at this position. The model has more than ample wing area to support this weight. This is NOT an underpowered model by any means and half throttle cruise flight is my norm as it sips on the 8000mAh and provides astounding 14 minute flights. I also have a small amount of up elevator trim in flight and the model flies on rails like this.
                    Takeoffs are not a problem at all for anyone who has some reasonable taildragger time. Easy on the throttle up, nice and gentle, let her gain speed, apply rudder as necessary and she’ll fly herself off the ground at half throttle. Very well behaved in my opinion. I have trimmed both gear door fronts up 1/2 inch so crab grass will not grab them and flip the model during grass ops as it did happen twice before I trimmed them.

                    Landings in general, refer to post #1611 and # 1614 on page 81 of this thread.

                    Landings can be tricky in cross winds, if your ever gonna drag a wingtip, it’s going to happen in a brisk crosswind. As experienced as I am at landings, I prefer wind down the runway to light crosswinds only for this model, as moderate and strong crosswinds will exceed her scale crosswind component. You be the judge where to draw the line...

                    Watch this video and I suggest this exact style of landing approach for the model.
                    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o3GfIgYx1Hk

                    Comment


                    • O-T, I like the way you think. Well said...err...written. Best, and very Merry Christmas to you and yours, LB
                      Captain: Got any ideas?
                      F/O: Actually not.
                      — Captain Chesley B 'Sully' Sullenberger III and F/O Jeff Skiles—

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ole-Timer View Post
                        I can’t answer why the incidence is off on the tail plane but having many flights on both my Spitfires I can state the following, and this will also help Tony out on his battery question of weight. I fly with 8000mAh batteries positioned at 1/4 inch back from the full forward position. I’m comfortable with the entire flight envelop at this position. The model has more than ample wing area to support this weight. This is NOT an underpowered model by any means and half throttle cruise flight is my norm as it sips on the 8000mAh and provides astounding 14 minute flights. I also have a small amount of up elevator trim in flight and the model flies on rails like this.
                        OT............you indicate that you have yours trimmed with a small amount of up E trim.
                        How does it handle on level inverted flight and how much down pressure is required to hold level.
                        Why not pull the Lipo back another 1/4 inch or so, so that your E is neutral.
                        Before I acquire this airframe, just inquiring if there IS an incidence issue to be dealt with.

                        Thanx,
                        Warbird Charlie
                        HSD Skyraider; FlightLine: Sea Fury; FMS 1400: P-40B, P-51, F4U, F6F, T-28, P-40E, 1700 F4U and a Fox glider; Freewing: A-6, P-51; VQ: P-39; Dynam: ME-262, FW-190, Waco; ASM A-26; ESM F7F-3
                        Incinerator Loss 16

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ole-Timer View Post



                          Arnie,

                          I can’t answer why the incidence is off on the tail plane but having many flights on both my Spitfires I can state the following, and this will also help Tony out on his battery question of weight. I fly with 8000mAh batteries positioned at 1/4 inch back from the full forward position. I’m comfortable with the entire flight envelop at this position. The model has more than ample wing area to support this weight. This is NOT an underpowered model by any means and half throttle cruise flight is my norm as it sips on the 8000mAh and provides astounding 14 minute flights. I also have a small amount of up elevator trim in flight and the model flies on rails like this.
                          Takeoffs are not a problem at all for anyone who has some reasonable taildragger time. Easy on the throttle up, nice and gentle, let her gain speed, apply rudder as necessary and she’ll fly herself off the ground at half throttle. Very well behaved in my opinion. I have trimmed both gear door fronts up 1/2 inch so crab grass will not grab them and flip the model during grass ops as it did happen twice before I trimmed them.

                          Landings in general, refer to post #1611 and # 1614 on page 81 of this thread.

                          Landings can be tricky in cross winds, if your ever gonna drag a wingtip, it’s going to happen in a brisk crosswind. As experienced as I am at landings, I prefer wind down the runway to light crosswinds only for this model, as moderate and strong crosswinds will exceed her scale crosswind component. You be the judge where to draw the line...

                          Watch this video and I suggest this exact style of landing approach for the model.
                          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o3GfIgYx1Hk
                          Thanks for your imput OT.

                          I will proceed with the build as the designer intended. Would love to know why the incidence is required, but that's possibly an experiment for a V2 spit.

                          Loved that vidoe clip of the restored Mk 1X in Canada. They didn't lift the gear on their maiden. Great looking markings too.

                          I'm setting mine up using the Norweigen livery of ace Wing Commander Rolf Arne Berg. He used RAB in his registration. Quite an interesting character, who commanded english and norweigen squadrons, but had an unfortunate end to his life.

                          May look into using bigger batteries too.






                          Comment


                          • Moving the battery aft to compensate for up elevator brings the cg aft to the point where I’ve experienced poor handling characteristics during landing approaches, similar to those inherent in real Spitfires per the NACA report. The culperate are the large wing to body fillets on the Spitfire causing turbulence over the aft fuselage and small empennage, floaty approaches exaggerate the turbulence. A gyro does indeed help compensate for the instability that’s caused by this condition.
                            I’ve opted to maintain a fwd cg to increase longitudinal stability and live with a small amount of up elevator. You can move the battery aft in calm conditions and float this model in, Ive done that several times, but in windy bumpy conditions, I’ll take the fwd cg every time.
                            With all my warbirds I prefer a slightly fwd cg. Inverted flight indeed requires some down elevator and is a key indicator the cg is fwd. I do this for three reasons.
                            First, I don’t fly my warbirds as stunt planes. I do perform aerobatics that a warbird would normally be capable of.
                            Second, I like how they track in windy conditions with a bit of forward cg.
                            Third, during landing approaches, the nose drops in a more fitting approach to the runway for my tastes. I dislike long floaty approaches and want positive airflow over the wings and tail down into ground effect then flair.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ole-Timer View Post
                              Moving the battery aft to compensate for up elevator brings the cg aft to the point where I’ve experienced poor handling characteristics during landing approaches, similar to those inherent in real Spitfires per the NACA report. The culperate are the large wing to body fillets on the Spitfire causing turbulence over the aft fuselage and small empennage, floaty approaches exaggerate the turbulence. A gyro does indeed help compensate for the instability that’s caused by this condition.
                              I’ve opted to maintain a fwd cg to increase longitudinal stability and live with a small amount of up elevator. You can move the battery aft in calm conditions and float this model in, Ive done that several times, but in windy bumpy conditions, I’ll take the fwd cg every time.
                              With all my warbirds I prefer a slightly fwd cg. Inverted flight indeed requires some down elevator and is a key indicator the cg is fwd. I do this for three reasons.
                              First, I don’t fly my warbirds as stunt planes. I do perform aerobatics that a warbird would normally be capable of.
                              Second, I like how they track in windy conditions with a bit of forward cg.
                              Third, during landing approaches, the nose drops in a more fitting approach to the runway for my tastes. I dislike long floaty approaches and want positive airflow over the wings and tail down into ground effect then flair.
                              This is a generally correct approach to flying RC and full- size warbirds ... thanks so much Mr. Ole-timer .

                              Comment


                              • One final word on landing approaches and that has to do with stalls. I’ve seen several models crash short of the runway because of low and slow approaches inducing a stall, spin, crash. Any non aerobatic model similar to a warbird should have wingtip washout built into the wing so as speed is reduced and angle of attack is increased to continue creating the necessary lift, the inboard part of the wing near the fuselage will begin to stall first. This causes a separation of the laminar airflow at the inboard section first resulting in turbulence around the fuselage and turbulent airflow over the tail. The model will begin to experience a loss of solid rudder and elevator control as this situation progresses. Only by pushing the nose over and ending the stall in its infancy will airflow be restored to the tail. A word of caution, once a stall begins and you are experiencing some loss of control over the tail, do not throw full power on as you will most likely snap roll the airplane left and enter a spin. The Spitfire is this type and that’s why the nose down approach is the primary way to avoid the situation entirely.

                                Models are exactly like their real counterparts so during landing approaches it’s pitch for airspeed and power for altitude.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Ole-Timer View Post
                                  One final word on landing approaches and that has to do with stalls. I’ve seen several models crash short of the runway because of low and slow approaches inducing a stall, spin, crash. Any non aerobatic model similar to a warbird should have wingtip washout built into the wing so as speed is reduced and angle of attack is increased to continue creating the necessary lift, the inboard part of the wing near the fuselage will begin to stall first. This causes a separation of the laminar airflow at the inboard section first resulting in turbulence around the fuselage and turbulent airflow over the tail. The model will begin to experience a loss of solid rudder and elevator control as this situation progresses. Only by pushing the nose over and ending the stall in its infancy will airflow be restored to the tail. A word of caution, once a stall begins and you are experiencing some loss of control over the tail, do not throw full power on as you will most likely snap roll the airplane left and enter a spin. The Spitfire is this type and that’s why the nose down approach is the primary way to avoid the situation entirely.

                                  Models are exactly like their real counterparts so during landing approaches it’s pitch for airspeed and power for altitude.
                                  Always the way to bring in a war bird.. Everyone always wonders why on final I have so much altitude and a nose down attitude , but am able to land so nicely . I fly my EDF's this way as well.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Ole-Timer View Post



                                    Arnie,

                                    I can’t answer why the incidence is off on the tail plane but having many flights on both my Spitfires I can state the following, and this will also help Tony out on his battery question of weight. I fly with 8000mAh batteries positioned at 1/4 inch back from the full forward position. I’m comfortable with the entire flight envelop at this position. The model has more than ample wing area to support this weight. This is NOT an underpowered model by any means and half throttle cruise flight is my norm as it sips on the 8000mAh and provides astounding 14 minute flights. I also have a small amount of up elevator trim in flight and the model flies on rails like this.
                                    Takeoffs are not a problem at all for anyone who has some reasonable taildragger time. Easy on the throttle up, nice and gentle, let her gain speed, apply rudder as necessary and she’ll fly herself off the ground at half throttle. Very well behaved in my opinion. I have trimmed both gear door fronts up 1/2 inch so crab grass will not grab them and flip the model during grass ops as it did happen twice before I trimmed them.

                                    Landings in general, refer to post #1611 and # 1614 on page 81 of this thread.

                                    Landings can be tricky in cross winds, if your ever gonna drag a wingtip, it’s going to happen in a brisk crosswind. As experienced as I am at landings, I prefer wind down the runway to light crosswinds only for this model, as moderate and strong crosswinds will exceed her scale crosswind component. You be the judge where to draw the line...

                                    Watch this video and I suggest this exact style of landing approach for the model.
                                    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o3GfIgYx1Hk
                                    I've had trouble landing mine at times- i shall try a more forward CG in the spring and thanks for the post. Incidentally, I chose the livery of the restored "Y2K" in the video.
                                    Tom

                                    Comment


                                    • OT

                                      Many fliers become blase about their CG's. It really comes home to roost when they have to land in windy conditions, especially unexpected cross winds. Too aft and it's "wing and a prayer" stuff.

                                      Are you using the blue box as supplied. If so, what's your experience as reguards it's reliability/suitability. I set up my ailerons on individual channels for more precise trimming, so I may use the box only for certain functions. Sounds like extensions to some servo leads may be in order too.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Hardway View Post
                                        Arnie, I haven't checked the incidence and have not done the maiden, so I can't comment.... Tony, the 5000 is recommended and is supposed to balance fine. Mine does.... Hope this help a tiny bit!! Merry Christmas!
                                        I use the newer Admiral 5000mAh packs in mine and was concerned when I couldn't achieve the quoted CG even with the packs all the way forward. So, I weighed the new 5000 packs and compared them with the quoted weight of the older ones and surprise, surprise...the new ones are about 3oz lighter than the older ones. Problem solved!
                                        Friends have noticed a similar thing with the F-4, again fixed by adding 3oz of weight in the nose.

                                        Comment


                                        • I use the blue box for lighting and gear. So far so good after one year of use. Ailerons and flaps are connected directly to the Rx. My ailerons are simply y harnessed. I typically only separate ailerons on giant scale models.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X