Official FlightLine RC 1600mm P-38 Lightning Thread

[SoLongSidekick]

I also have other dilemmas. I would like to have some sort of stabilization for certain flights, and that was originally going to come in the form of an FrSky S8R receiver. But if I go with the Vector system it's a FC and OSD in one. And in that case I could use my existing X8R receiver and save some cash.

[SoLongSidekick]

As for the reason i installed the servo flush it was for pov hight correctness as I used the pilot figure eye level.

Could you measure the distance from the deck where the pilot sits to the middle of your lens when looking straight forward? Or some other distance that I can compare to a differently set up pan/tilt gimbal (like from the deck to the pilot figure's eyes)? Thanks in advance.

**EDIT** Looking at pictures of the stock cockpit, I might end up shaving off the top hump of the control panel. Especially if I end up making a mock k14 gyro gunsight. It will need a flat surface to mount on and it would remove some mass from a forward visual obstruction. I could probably get the camera lower down if I removed it. I really need to get the model in my hands so I can measure and see for myself. One day away from ordering!!

[rifleman_btx]

Yeah you will loose those things mentioned and because of how it's setup their GPS is integrated into the controller. The updates have to be on the same page meaning both the GPS and controller have to have the same level update. Their GPS isn't bad and includes a true compass.

[rifleman_btx]

I also have other dilemmas. I would like to have some sort of stabilization for certain flights, and that was originally going to come in the form of an FrSky S8R receiver. But if I go with the Vector system it's a FC and OSD in one. And in that case I could use my existing X8R receiver and save some cash.

Go with the X8R. Save the cash as the vector system is much better than the S8R, as well as you have more stabilization options.

[SoLongSidekick]

Go with the X8R. Save the cash as the vector system is much better than the S8R, as well as you have more stabilization options.

You think I should save up for their GPS too? They basically said that only their GPS module would work. I asked them exactly what OSD features I would lose because all I really care about are battery stats and an artificial horizon. I guess their answer will determine how I go forward.

The more I think about it, the TBS Unify Pro would look so freaking cool sitting in the radio bay. It's a black circuit board, actually kind of looks like a tiny scaled-down radio. Then, using the antenna pigtail, I could route the FPV antenna out the top/back of the cockpit. Custom make a metal plate that the pigtail can secure into, then paint the plate and antenna green. Going to look freaking slick.

**EDIT** I wonder how hard it would be to de-case the Triumph antenna. It's a Lindenblad, and would look pretty WWII-ish naked.

[rifleman_btx]

I would get the GPS. Later in time you might wish you had

[SoLongSidekick]

I would get the GPS. Later in time you might wish you had

True, but I can always add it on later too. Their radar feature is pretty slick though, it uses the nose pip to denote where you are and has a tiny airplane graphic that flies around it in a relative manner.

Could you measure the height of your camera lens to the cockpit "floor"? I'm wondering if I'll be able to use a pan/tilt that I already have on hand, or if I'll have to get FatShark's more compact model.

I've attached a photo of the one I have laying around. I could snap any of the quadcopter type FPV cameras that I have lying around into it, instead of having to use the kind of crappy FatShark CMOS camera. I'd love to put like a RunCam Owl in here or something like that so I could fly at night and really show off the LEDs on this plane.

[rifleman_btx]

Mine is 1.75" floor to center of lens,

[SoLongSidekick]

Mine is 1.75" floor to center of lens,

Outstanding, thanks so much. I'll measure the gimbal I have when I get home. Just out of curiosity, with yours installed at pilot figure's eye level is there much vertical clearance? The more I think about it, I will probably end up cutting the "glass" out of the cockpit. Even with perfectly clear material, there's glare and smudges to constantly worry about. Plus it would make everything really easy to get to.

Excuse my ignorance, but exactly how big are the props for this thing? The specs say 12" in diameter, is that the diameter of the three props when installed? Or is that the length of one prop? If it's the former, I wonder how this baby would rip on a 6x4x3 racing quad prop.

[xviper]

Excuse my ignorance, but exactly how big are the props for this thing? The specs say 12" in diameter, is that the diameter of the three props when installed? Or is that the length of one prop? If it's the former, I wonder how this baby would rip on a 6x4x3 racing quad prop.

It's not going to be 12" blade. That would make it a 24"+ diameter prop - a bit much, don't you think? Propellers are generally listed in terms of diameter and pitch. In this case, it's 12" X 7" X 3 or a 12" X 8" X 2 for the performance package.
If you use a 6x4x3 quad prop, this plane will barely taxi. It won't "rip". It'll sound like a sewing machine and roll slowly up and down the runway if it'll move at all. Going to a small prop like that doesn't mean it's going to work better, even though you call it a "racing" prop. Going to a smaller prop requires disproportionately higher rpm to get even close to the same thrust. In this example, not only are you going down in diameter, but you are going down in pitch. Won't even make an adequate fan for your living room in the summer months.

[SoLongSidekick]

It's not going to be 12" blade. That would make it a 24"+ diameter prop - a bit much, don't you think? Propellers are generally listed in terms of diameter and pitch. In this case, it's 12" X 7" X 3 or a 12" X 8" X 2 for the performance package.
If you use a 6x4x3 quad prop, this plane will barely taxi. It won't "rip". It'll sound like a sewing machine and roll slowly up and down the runway if it'll move at all. Going to a small prop like that doesn't mean it's going to work better, even though you call it a "racing" prop. Going to a smaller prop requires disproportionately higher rpm to get even close to the same thrust. In this example, not only are you going down in diameter, but you are going down in pitch. Won't even make an adequate fan for your living room in the summer months.

How exactly do you figure? If these three bladed props have a 12" diameter, then the 6x4x3s are identical in diameter.

**EDIT** And I'm not calling them racing props, that's what they are. https://www.getfpv.com/hqprop-dp-6x4...ck-4-pack.html

[fhhuber]

Standard practice is to designate a prop by diameter, pitch and blade count (2 is assumed if not listed) then any specialty type.

APC 14 X 4 W = a 14 inch diameter, 4 inch pitch, (2 blade since not listed) Wide blade.

Some of the specialty props with a separate hub and changeable blades may note the blade length and hub diameter.
Pitch and diameter change as the hub diameter changes. (if its not an adjustable pitch system) More diameter spacing the blades further effectively increases pitch.

Some of the replacement blade sets will list the diameter and pitch when using a specific hub (APC does this one even though you can use their "8 inch dia blades meant for 50 mm hub {lets confuse people by using metric and SAE measures on the same prop} on any of their folding prop hubs with a large number of hub diameters)

You'll see props with the pitch and dia listed as one number 1170 E = 11 X 7.0 Electric for APC (again number followed by specialty use "code" letters)

APC also has the dia and pitch in metric on the other blade (2 blade props... opposed blades on 4 blade props not sure how they do that for 3 blade but it will have metric and SAE)

I have NEVER seen a one piece prop that listed by blade length. If its molded as one piece or a glued and permanently bolted together (Master Airscrew does this) wood, it will go by the diameter.

Go ahead and get those 6X4X3 props... you will find they are 6 inch diameter. 3 inches from center of the hole in the hub to the bade tip.

There is NO maker of a 12 inch dia 3 blade that will sell you 4 (2 CW and 2 CCW) for $3. NONE. You might find a single 12X6X3 for about $5.
Also, I've never seen a 12X4X3. 6 inch pitch is pretty much the minimum for a 3 blade 12 inch dia.

[xviper]

How exactly do you figure? If these three bladed props have a 12" diameter, then the 6x4x3s are identical in diameter.

**EDIT** And I'm not calling them racing props, that's what they are. https://www.getfpv.com/hqprop-dp-6x4...ck-4-pack.html

I take it you haven't been in the RC hobby very long. The diameter is that of the circle the propeller carves. A 6x4x3 carves a 6" circle. So, what your are saying is ........................ 12" = 6" ................. :Silly:

[Hardway]

All props that I have personal experience with are sized by diameter, then pitch, and then blade count. The diameter is the total for the prop, not each blade... 12 x 6 x 3 is 12 inches in diameter (total) 6 inches in pitch, and 3 blades... The 6x4x3 will be 6 inches in diameter, 4 inches in pitch and 3 blades. Hope this helps clarify the way the props are labeled or designated...

[rifleman_btx]

If these were 2 blades tip to tip would be 12". And the 6" if were 2 blades would be 6" tip to tip. So you would be cutting your blade disc area in half.

[fhhuber]

If these were 2 blades tip to tip would be 12". And the 6" if were 2 blades would be 6" tip to tip. So you would be cutting your blade disc area in half.

Actually disc area is Pi * R^2

3^2 = 9
6^2 = 36

Not half the disc area... one QUARTER.

And static thrust is a function of disc area such that I'd expect 1/8 the max static thrust.

it might be able to maintain airspeed from a hand launch... probably not.

[rifleman_btx]

True, it's been a long time since I took the army flight aptitude test... makes me upset that I didn't have a chance to get in.. it is what it is though

[SoLongSidekick]

Mine is 1.75" floor to center of lens,

It looks like mine might be a bit high. How much clearance did you have above your setup? I would really like to be able to look "up", so it seems like I'll be going your cut-out route regardless.

[rifleman_btx]

Yeah you will have to cut the top at least. There was no way around it or A you won't see over the dash, or B you won't have any up tilt.

[SoLongSidekick]

I started thinking back to my racing quads and applied that type of thinking to the P-38. I was wondering why I don't have all these considerations when building a quad, and then I had the most obvious realization ever: it's because the camera is at the very front of the craft. I just placed my order a few minutes ago, and ordered an extra P-38 nose cone because I'm going to try and drill the foam out and mount a camera right in the center of it. It will look exactly the same, except with a small lens sitting flush with the nose. I might not even really need the pan/tilt with the camera in such an advantageous position. I also ordered an extra cockpit though so I can go the traditional route if that doesn't work out.

**EDIT** Was looking at the 2,000mm B-24 thread and saw that someone had set their plane up almost exactly the same way I'm talking about here (except there's a window around his, the P-28 obviously doesn't so the camera would be invisible): https://i.imgur.com/lhvnHwN.jpg

Has anyone tried setting this model up with differential thrust? I've never flown a twin boomed aircraft outside of fighter video games, so I don't know exactly what it would do to such a unique air frame as far as agility goes. Might be an interesting thing to try out though.