Is FlightLine RC capable of a 1/16.7 scale B-29

[xviper]

Your totally correct.
A heavy bomber isn’t a fighter.
This is the same thing that limits 90% of the people I fly with.
Ya gotta get out of the box brother.
Your limiting your abilities and your life experience!

I try not to limit myself in anything I do (money permitting). I know the type you speak of. I fly with some myself. It's what's in their comfort zone and that's OK with me. Having gone through over 100 RC planes (and 18 helicopters) in the last several years and still flying over 40 of them, I've limited nothing. I fly everything. Started with a sailplane and continue to enjoy the sailplane experience. I've had a multitude of fighters, both props (single and twins) and jets (single and twins) and I still fly them and mod them for more power. I've had many civilian models and still enjoy flying my Cirrus. And bombers? Yes, several. Water planes? A bunch. I even have many, many "make belief" planes like the Convergence (VTOL) and kit built (and over powered) things like the MAKO, Arctic Cat, Mad Bird, Pterodactyl ornithopter. Also kit built SU-34 and SU-35 and now also the V-22 Osprey. Let's not forget a whole fleet of flying wings. Then there's the quad. Done the balsa thing, composite, glass, plastic, foam. Get out of the box? I think I've gotten out of the box and decimated several other boxes.
As far as life experiences, flying RC is just the one I've settled into for now. I've been a medical research scientist for 20 years and a firefighter of another 20 years. I've seen stuff that most people will never see their whole lives and stuff that will give most people nightmares (and still give me nightmares). I think I've had my share of life. I haven't limited myself in the least in the RC world.

[xviper]

I'd love to have a Heavy bomber fleet with the B-29 and most definitely the B-24 to add to my B-17 that I've had for several years now.
A Lancaster would be awesome too....

The Lancaster has been my all time favorite but the one that HobbyKing sold was a POS. Most people who bought and tried to fly it, hated it. I say "tried" to fly as it wasn't a good flying machine. If Flightline came out with a large size Lancaster, I'll have to get rid of more planes to make room.

[Jody Shaneyfelt]

Yeah I've got the hobby Crap Lancaster too and I knew something was wrong when I seen the battery behind the wing spar.
i flew it 3 times and gave up on it

[F106DeltaDart]

The Lancaster has been my all time favorite but the one that HobbyKing sold was a POS. Most people who bought and tried to fly it, hated it. I say "tried" to fly as it wasn't a good flying machine. If Flightline came out with a large size Lancaster, I'll have to get rid of more planes to make room.

With some reengineering it was a great plane. I bought it on clearance and added some washout, rudders, big scale flaps, and moved the battery up front and tossed the lead weight. Slows down quite nicely now. Would definitely be better it a larger for sure though.

[xviper]

Yeah I've got the hobby Crap Lancaster too and I knew something was wrong when I seen the battery behind the wing spar.
i flew it 3 times and gave up on it

You were lucky and got 3 flights out of it. One of the senior guys at one of my clubs got one just before I was about to pull the pin on one myself. He contacted me to say "forget it". He managed about 15 seconds on it before it lifted off, did a wing over and augered into the ground. He fixed it as best he could and sold it for cheap to another club member who just had to try it. Needless to say, another buddy of mine and I didn't buy one.

[xviper]

With some reengineering it was a great plane. I bought it on clearance and added some washout, rudders, big scale flaps, and moved the battery up front and tossed the lead weight. Slows down quite nicely now. Would definitely be better it a larger for sure though.

I had heard that's what it needed to fly right. I just wasn't prepared to do all that work on an "out of the box" airplane.
Anyway, the B-29? I think if Flightline made it, it's going to fly. Just don't make it too gignormous (2m or less would be just right).

[TiredIronGRB]

With some reengineering it was a great plane. I bought it on clearance and added some washout, rudders, big scale flaps, and moved the battery up front and tossed the lead weight. Slows down quite nicely now. Would definitely be better it a larger for sure though.

Only plane that I ever loved crashing, it was like trying to fly a wet dish rag.

[F106DeltaDart]

Only plane that I ever loved crashing, it was like trying to fly a wet dish rag.

Wow! I didn’t know it was that bad. Never flew it stock, and did all my mods before the maiden. Guess the mods must have worked..

[Ole-Timer]

Well, it’s just like Admiral Tuttle used to say...
If ya can’t run with the big dogs, stay at home on the porch.

78 inches ain’t even giant scale.

[rifleman_btx]

I say 90-110" would suffice. Could do a 3 piece wing simular to my 10ft wing project I'm doing. :)

[fhhuber]

Well...getting CG wrong will ruin any airplane.

E-Flite micro Mosquito got bad reviews because its just a PITA to fly stock
Move the CG forward to where it REALLY belongs (not back appx 40% MAC) and the plane flies pretty well, except it has a roll rate of "maybe next week"
I altered mine to use a pair of 200mah 1S in parallel instead of the OEM 250 mah 1S. That puts the CG where it belongs. (so simple...)

Curing the roll rate will mean opening it up again and seeing if the micro RX/servo board has a Ch6 plug to put the aileron servos each on their own channel to dial in a LOT of differential. (I knew I forgot something when I taped the fuselage back together) The highly under-chambered micro models' wings tend to need differential ailerons.

Using this example because... I was flying it today.

[rifleman_btx]

Well...getting CG wrong will ruin any airplane.

E-Flite micro Mosquito got bad reviews because its just a PITA to fly stock
Move the CG forward to where it REALLY belongs (not back appx 40% MAC) and the plane flies pretty well, except it has a roll rate of "maybe next week"
I altered mine to use a pair of 200mah 1S in parallel instead of the OEM 250 mah 1S. That puts the CG where it belongs. (so simple...)

Curing the roll rate will mean opening it up again and seeing if the micro RX/servo board has a Ch6 plug to put the aileron servos each on their own channel to dial in a LOT of differential. (I knew I forgot something when I taped the fuselage back together) The highly under-chambered micro models' wings tend to need differential ailerons.

Using this example because... I was flying it today.

I did fpv with this one. I never had much problem flying it.

[fhhuber]

I did fpv with this one. I never had much problem flying it.

Probably corrected the CG by adding the camera.

[rifleman_btx]

Kinda, I've done alot of flying with it. Mostly LOS. Only a couple fpv. All in all. I liked it... much like the fms P38, I never had any problems flying that plane either even though I seen here others had nothing but hell with them. Maybe I just get lucky from time to time. :/

[borntoolate]

I would love a large B-29! Well, make that a couple of large B-29s!

Bob

[Ole-Timer]

My preference would lean toward a 6s power system. Be great to be able to fit two 8000mAh 6s’s in there.

[fhhuber]

My preference would lean toward a 6s power system. Be great to be able to fit two 8000mAh 6s’s in there.

Prop plane that size with 4 motors (scale props even) would be more appropriate using 4S. That would still give it power to do maneuvers that would fold the wings.

I agree there's plenty of room for some huge packs to give long duration flight. And it would still have room to do the functional bomb bay. It would be a heavy lifting beast.

At the same scale as the B-17 and B-24, it would make a great glider tug (piggy back or tow) as a secondary purpose. Pretty easy to put on a cradle that removes easily and doesn't mess up the scale details.
And then there's the X-1 through X-15 dropping from the scale location using a small RC plane that can light off its Estes rocket motor.

[Ole-Timer]

I enjoy long flights for sure. Either way, as long as the power is sufficient and larger mAh packs can fit in.
One thing I do wonder about is the wire lengths involved getting from the batteries all the way out to the esc’s. Long wires do cause issues.
Imagine sticking a 4s in each engine nacelle...!

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?952523-too-long-battery-wires-will-kill-ESC-over-time-precautions-solutions-workarounds

[fhhuber]

I'd probably go for adding capacitors on the B-29 to keep the packs in the fuselage.

http://www.castlecreations.com/en/cc...ck-011-0002-02

Something similar to this at each motor.

or push the ESC to the wing sections between inboard engines and fuselage.

[Ole-Timer]

Both those are good ideas for a project like this. Moving the esc’s inboard would be the likely solution.