Small Bomber???

[Aces High Tony]

Hey all,

I was curious to see if there is such a thing as a small....say 12th or 16th scale WWII bomber??? After watching the crash of the gigantic B17 on www.rcwarbirds.com , i'd prob. like to stick to something smaller.... any links or sites that would sound interesting??? thanks everyone

[AMTJIM]

Welllllllll....Guillows makes a B-17 and a B-29. They also have a B-25 I think. DARE now has a laser cut B-17, 73 in WS. Hobby Lobby has a few, they could be converted. Hobby Barn Sells the large B-17 Marutaka? kit. The multiplex Cargo has an actual working bombay, should be a good convert to glow. Looks like a B-17/C-47 combined.

[T. Lyttle]

Multis, particularly 1/2A, always suffer fron engine-out problems, uless you pick the right aircraft. Everyone gravitates to B17, B24, Lanc, etc, real bears when an engine quits, worse 2 engines quit on the same side, even at the end of the fuel runs.

There are, with research, lots of multis that have the engines close together, making engine-out less of a problem due to assymetric thrust. Also, some of the US stuff is quite colourful, sme of the French/Russian/British bombers were wild designs, though flight characteristics wouldn't necessarily be as unmanageable as the thrust problems of the "regular" bombers.

Have a look, there is LOTS out there that are "out there".

[AMTJIM]

Yes with multi engine planes, it's a good idea to take some extra ground time to tune and sync them. It's not that hard to sync the engines, can be easily done by just listening to the beat frequency. Also, a good idea to time the flights, not run out of fuel. In regards to uncontrolability with engines going out, what ever thrust angle you may need, unless the instruction say not to do so or it's already included, always point the nose of the engine a few degrees outboard to start off.

[T. Lyttle]

One of the biggest problems with 1/2A stuff is always weight: throttled engines and the attendant servo add to the problem while solving another.

And that adds one more reason to build an earlier design aircraft: they usually have larger wing areas as well as engines close together. I'm just trying to make your first venture into scale multis as painless as possible here!

[justaboutgeese]

Sombody told me that twin engines were the way to go if thats what you were interested in. He also guaranteed that in every case a single engine still running would in every case be able to get the aircraft to the crash site.

[T. Lyttle]

Crash site??? That about covers it! :)

Lots more examples of successful twins, but the same rules apply: pick a design where the engines are as close together as practical (best: Catalina, worst: P38), widest possible tips (best: B25, worst: Mosquito) and preferably a high wing. Even in full size these rules apply.

Good luck

[easytiger]

I've had great, great success with glow twins.
Synching the engines is one of the great myths. No offense to anyone.
The engines can be off by up to 500rpm, with little or no effect.
Trying to synch the engines is what causes one engine to be too lean or to rich. Synching the engines with the needle valves is a GUARANTEED crash.
Tune each engine seperately for best performance, each one with the other off.
Electrics are another story.
I have the Guillows B25, am going to use Gws50 direct drive.

[T. Lyttle]

Twins are usually more successful with throttles, true enough; I assumed that throttles in a 1/2A were more of an option, as all my multis have used Cox or diesels.

Right on about the Great Synch debate; I have seen LOTS of crashes due to a pair of perfectly synch'ed engines that were also perfectly out of tune, result obvious.

And electric is truly the only safe way to run multis, IMHO.

[easytiger]

Unthrottled multis usually don't work out. One engine stops before the other as the fuel runs out, usually a spin results.
1/2a WITH throttles, well, fun, but electric is a lot more reliable and a lot less hassle.
Bigger models, though...
I don't feel bad at all about flying a large twin with two four strokes, they always feel more reliable than two strokes.

Rule number one:
You may NOT touch any needle valve when both engines are running.
Follow that, always.

[AMTJIM]

Wow, I never knew so many people had problems with engine synchronization. I guess thats a perk from being an A&P. Beat frequency is a common method even for real aircraft. The only one that came close to being a problem for me was a twin glow pusher jet, actually, it was more of a pain in the butt. Because of the low draw of air they start to overheat rather quickly. I had to install a tractor props, then set the engines, then re-install the pusher props. It was close enough after that that I never had to mess with it again. Before I used that method, the tail would wiggle from out of sync engines.

[john8750]

I built a B24.
36" span, 12.4 ounces, 4 GWS 50's with 3030 props, micro gear for throttle, rudder, and elevator, 1200 mah e-tech battery.

On the first flight it flew straight and very fast until the motor torque took over about 30 feet after a hand launge. Pulled it into the ground with just a little damage.
The real damage happened later when on the way home a case or cat foor from the super market slid forward in the van and tottaly crushed the whole plane. I will build another one( after I get rid of the cats.)

[RiBell]

Originally posted by john8750
I built a B24.
36" span, 12.4 ounces, 4 GWS 50's with 3030 props, micro gear for throttle, rudder, and elevator, 1200 mah e-tech battery.

On the first flight it flew straight and very fast until the motor torque took over about 30 feet after a hand launge. Pulled it into the ground with just a little damage.
The real damage happened later when on the way home a case of cat food from the super market slid forward in the van and tottaly crushed the whole plane. I will build another one( after I get rid of the cats.)
I'm so glad that my wife is allergic to cats, don't have that problem.
Sorry to here about the transporting accident, Was it a kit? or scratch built?

As to Tony's first question. I did see a Guillow's P-38 with retracts and a pair of brushless motors. I would really like to do one with a pair of Norvels. Just right now I've got to many projects.
Rick

[easytiger]

Originally posted by AMTJIM
Wow, I never knew so many people had problems with engine synchronization. I guess thats a perk from being an A&P. Beat frequency is a common method even for real aircraft. The only one that came close to being a problem for me was a twin glow pusher jet, actually, it was more of a pain in the butt. Because of the low draw of air they start to overheat rather quickly. I had to install a tractor props, then set the engines, then re-install the pusher props. It was close enough after that that I never had to mess with it again. Before I used that method, the tail would wiggle from out of sync engines.

Clever. What I am saying is that beat frequency is NOT a smart idea for model airplanes. On a full scale aircraft, you have instruments to tell you if an engine is lean or rich or hot or what. On a model, you don't. You don't need the engines synchronized, you need them each running properly at whatever speed they are happy at. If you can synch them together using only the throttle linkages, great. If you are off a bit, it does not matter.
But woe betide the fellow who uses the needle valves to synch his engine. It is probably the number one way these planes die.

Love that little B-24, too cute! Worth publishing plans, you should!

[Aces High Tony]

THANKS FOR ALL THE REPLIES BUT.....
would it be better for me to build a quad prop. plane so the odds of a engine out would be less??? If i'm not mistaken, could'nt a plane be flown with at least 3 engines, or even two out (one on each side)???? Anyhow... someone help me find some B-17's!!!!!

[easytiger]

Sure, but running four norvels or similar is a lot of noise and hassle. Can be done, but are you ready for it?

Electric is another story, you won't lose any engines on a twin OR a four engined plane.

[RiBell]

Originally posted by Aces High Tony
THANKS FOR ALL THE REPLIES BUT.....
would it be better for me to build a quad prop. plane so the odds of a engine out would be less??? If i'm not mistaken, could'nt a plane be flown with at least 3 engines, or even two out (one on each side)???? Anyhow... someone help me find some B-17's!!!!!
My LHS has a B-17 I belive that it's a "Dare" kit designed for 4 geared speed 400's I'm sure that it would be converted to glow power easy enough. It's got a 80"ish wing span though sounds like it might be a bit bigger than your looking for.
I don't think that you would be able to get much smaller with 4-0.049 engines, without way overpowering the airframe.


My $0.02 here would be to build a easyflying single engine aircraft, for the engines you want to use and fly them for a while, before sticking them in a multi. That way they're nicely broken in. and the risk of an engine out can be reduced.

And the biggest myth of all that I'm reading here is that an engine failure = a crash. I am also an aircraft mechanic by trade, and have changed many an engine due, to an in flight shutdown.
The most important thing, is to maintain airspeed so that the rudder will have enough authority, to counter act the adverse yaw caused by an engine out.
Rick

[easytiger]

Rick, but you are talking full scale versus models. Often, an engine out on a model happens so fast, that the model is already spinning before the pilot realizes what happened. Apples and oranges. A full scale twin is safer than a single, the oppsite is true with models.
But different models react very differently from others when an engine goes out. With some, it's no big deal at all, just fly around and land. With others, it's an instant inverted spin.
Good rule of thumb is this...lose an engine, just chop the throttle instantly. Pretend it's just like any other model, totally dead stick.

[RiBell]

Originally posted by easytiger
Rick, but you are talking full scale versus models. Often, an engine out on a model happens so fast, that the model is already spinning before the pilot realizes what happened. Apples and oranges. A full scale twin is safer than a single, the oppsite is true with models.
But different models react very differently from others when an engine goes out. With some, it's no big deal at all, just fly around and land. With others, it's an instant inverted spin.
Good rule of thumb is this...lose an engine, just chop the throttle instantly. Pretend it's just like any other model, totally dead stick.
Yes:
I completely agree with you. However I still think that any airplane, full-size or model, will still have a speed that is referred to as "Minimum controllable airspeed" It is the speed at which the rudder has enough authority to counteract the adverse yaw. For small models this might be quite fast. I think that with small models /vs/ full size, the issue is probably more to do with the "Reynolds's Numbers" and scaling down. After all if we were to have the same wing loading in the models as exist in small light twins, I don't think we would get very far. There are quite a few models that have more tail surface area for this very reason. Another thing that will help is the issue of right & down thrust. and maybe even put a little left thrust in the left engine.

I still think that twins are cool, there are a couple of twins at my flying club. The sound is so cool.
Rick

[easytiger]

Yeah, those molecules don't scale well! Losing an engine on a model, though, things usually happen so fast, there is not time to react. If you turn into the dead engine, and the plane is not tolerant, you are already into the spin before you can blink.

And the one engine still going is trying to keep the spin going. Hence, chopping the throttle right away is a good call.

I used to try to put as big a rudder as possible in any twin, but it's just not really needed. You want to avoid stooging around if you have lost an engine. Once or twice I have gone around with a dead engine when I made a really bad single engined approach, but it was a plane I had some fifty flights on, and was very familiar with, and it was very lightly loaded. I did not like the approach, I was going to overshoot, so I gently put the throttle back up to about one third, added rudder, and went around 180 and landed downwind with the gear up. I only did it because I thought the plane was doomed anyway as the overshoot area was a four foot high berm! But I would not want to be flying around on one engine if I could avoid it. Maybe with something really simple like a Twinstar or Falcon 56, but still....

Lose an engine, just chop the throttle. Treat it like any other airplane if the engine went out.

Trick is, recognizing when an engine is gone. It could look like just a tip stall or a high speed snap, and then when you add power to get out of it, it starts spinning HARDER.

[john8750]

Originally posted by RiBell
I'm so glad that my wife is allergic to cats, don't have that problem.
Sorry to here about the transporting accident, Was it a kit? or scratch built?

As to Tony's first question. I did see a Guillow's P-38 with retracts and a pair of brushless motors. I would really like to do one with a pair of Norvels. Just right now I've got to many projects.
Rick

I got the plans from RCM plans service. It has a 60' WS and for 4 .02's
I reduced the plans to a 36' wing, and built it as per the plans.
I will build another one watching the thrust and rudder alignment more closely.

[RiBell]

Originally posted by easytiger
Yeah, those molecules don't scale well! Losing an engine on a model, though, things usually happen so fast, there is not time to react. If you turn into the dead engine, and the plane is not tolerant, you are already into the spin before you can blink.

And the one engine still going is trying to keep the spin going. Hence, chopping the throttle right away is a good call.


Trick is, recognizing when an engine is gone. It could look like just a tip stall or a high speed snap, and then when you add power to get out of it, it starts spinning HARDER.

YUP
I wonder how well a gyro on the rudder would work? It might be able to give a rudder input at the most critical time. and give ya 1/2a chance. :D
All this aside I still would like to build some twins. They just sound so cool. Even the small ones. the smallest one that i've seen fly was a Catalina with a pair of 0.15's on it. One engine did quit and all that happened was it just became a dog, mind you the engines are so close together the props are almost touching.
John:
found it in the plans catalogue it's "RCM #195"

[easytiger]

I have tried the gyro. It works, but not really needed. It makes the plane handle a little funny in the air. Certainly makes takeoffs easy, though! Can't really say if it helps when an engine goes out...the plane with the gyro never had a dead stick! But, in theory, it helps an awful lot.

That B24, I had one, from the RCM plans, with four Medallion 049s, but I sold it before flying it. Too much hassle. Or maybe just too many planes. I like yours bettter!

[RiBell]

Yah:
The little B-24 looks good. John hope you build another one

I'd say that with 4 engines I might go electric as well. By the time ya get #4 running #1 is outa fuel. lol.
Rick

[T. Lyttle]

Yup, electric is the way to go for multis particularly if the engiles are wide-spaced. The B24 looks great!

AAM (?) published a plan for a B24 for four 020s; can you imagine what that sounded like???

If sound is a concern, diesel is the next choice to electric. My PAWs need little warmup, hold their tune, and are easily matched for run time. In my mind, one small diesel is worth 10 Coxs, but I have had no experience with the Norvels; am I right that the Norvels come as diesels as well?

[RiBell]

Originally posted by T. Lyttle
AAM (?) published a plan for a B24 for four 020s; can you imagine what that sounded like???
It was RCModeler.
and if I'm reading the "plans catalog correctly, the would have apeaired in the 1966 December issue.
as plan #195.
sound like?? My guess a swarm of bee's
I think that this is a lot more do-able today with the new micro radio gear, and the electric's we have today. I just wonder how successful guys were back then getting 4- 0.020's running?
Rick

[easytiger]

Originally posted by T. Lyttle
Yup, electric is the way to go for multis particularly if the engiles are wide-spaced. The B24 looks great!

AAM (?) published a plan for a B24 for four 020s; can you imagine what that sounded like???

If sound is a concern, diesel is the next choice to electric. My PAWs need little warmup, hold their tune, and are easily matched for run time. In my mind, one small diesel is worth 10 Coxs, but I have had no experience with the Norvels; am I right that the Norvels come as diesels as well?

There was a later one, not sure what mag, but seventies, for sure. That was mine. The fuse splits horizontally for radio access.

Hear, hear, on the PAW diesels. Wonderful, wonderful engines. But the STANK of FOUR diesels running is not too appealing!
Come to think of it, Eric Clutton also published a B-24, probably in FLying Models, somtime in the nineties. A paw 03 on just two inner nacelles, and...get this...no elevator! Clutton likes them mild!

The new Norvel 074 is a fantastic engine, an instant classic. I run several of the 061s in Kamdax DF jets, they are fantastic. Dead relaable, throttleable, everythign a Cox is not...

[RiBell]

Originally posted by Aces High Tony
THANKS FOR ALL THE REPLIES BUT.....
Anyhow... someone help me find some B-17's!!!!!
Tony:
we seem to have hi-jacked you thread a little.
here's a link to two of them.
Gillows B-17 (http://www.greathobbies.com/products/g/gui/gui2002.jpg) It's something like a 45" wingspan.
And theDare B-17 (http://www.greathobbies.com/scart/productinfo.php3?PartNumber=DAR520EL) with a 75" wingspan.
The links are to a Canadian company so the prices you see will be Cdn $$ the Dare kit is a bit pricey and I belive that it's designed for speed 400's.
Rick

[john8750]

Thanks for the nice words about my B24.
I will build another one, already planing some changes. May go to 42" span with 4 280's and 4" props. Also might use a built up wing instead of sheeted.
What do you suggest about engine thrust?
Building one is a labor of love.

[T. Lyttle]

I suggest outthrust on all engines, more for the outers. Also, old f/f trick is downthrust on the righthand engines, seems to work. I have to go thru all this when I get my f/f electric Halifax going, but spring seems a bit far away right now...

Stanky diesels? I was flying one day and a spectator came over and said, "That's a diesel! Ssssnnniiiifffff, ah that takes me back to my childhood, thank you very much!", in a British accent :).

[easytiger]

But he did not have to ride home in the car with the steeenky plane, afterwards! Or hear it from his wife!
I fired up a diesel, actually two of them, brand new 03s, for the first time in a year or so, just last month. Breaking in a pair to do a twin. The STENCH was still in my hangar a week later. And I use the Clutton Olde English fuel, which ain't as bad as most...

[RiBell]

Originally posted by john8750
Thanks for the nice words about my B24.
I will build another one, already planing some changes. May go to 42" span with 4 280's and 4" props. Also might use a built up wing instead of sheeted.
What do you suggest about engine thrust?
Building one is a labor of love.
I keep looking at the pic of your B-24.
The plans are but a phone call away.
How did it fair power-wise, with the IPS direct drive?
Rick.

[john8750]

Rick---
The power was very good. She wanted to pull right out of my hand.
Let me know whwt you think about the thrust line and down pitch. As soon as the props took over after hand launge the plane rolled lelt and out of control. The pitch was just like the plans showed.
My plane weighed just about 12 ounces. The 3020 props that come with the motors will be good for power.
I am thinking of a 42" wing on my next one with 280 DD and 4" props and maybe L gear.
Stay in touch.

[T. Lyttle]

... and there is my recommendation for downthrust on the right hand engines. Also, more right thrust on the right hand engines will help.

It also sounds like too much power to me, but I see a bomber as a sedate, stable performer. No one expects to have enough power to loop a bomber; even rolling one is possible but unlikely in full size!

[john8750]

I agree with you and will follow your suggestion about the thrust.
I am thinking about even the 60" wing with 4 300 dd's and 5" props. I do want landing gear on the next one.

[Aces High Tony]

WOW!!! Thanks for the reply gentlemen.... I guess I didn't realize there was so much BS involved in multi's. Yea...maybe I will consider electric over glow after reading all these threads!!! OUCH! That Guillows looks about a good size to start off with. Although I am going to cringe when I hear the roar of someone else multi with fuel, I won't cringe when I hear Goose telling Maverick, "Were going into a flat spin Mav...." Save the fuel for the single props for now. Thanks guys, and remember, ..."A good pilot always keeps it up, even when out of fuel." Heh heh

Tony

[john8750]

Tony--
I know what you mean about the sound of multi gasers, unbeatable.
The B24 I built was not a kit and was a job to transfer the parts from plans. If you dont like this type of construction then you will need a kit. Guillows has a B17 and a B24. Maybe just use 2 motors.
Let us know about your progress.

[RiBell]

Tony:
I still think that wet fuel twins are very doable, even in the 1/2A size. The biggest thing is engine reliability. And to that, engine selection becomes a very critical part of the equation.
It just becomes easier when the planes are small to switch to electric. There are a great many # of multi's flying with great success, and even landed safely with one engine out. And I still would like to try a Guillow's P-38 with a pair of Norvels, someday don't know when though.
Rick

[Aces High Tony]

ok, last question...what in the hell does 1/2A mean??? I 've read this all over and still can put 2 and 2 together... also, i've been "briefly" looking on the Guillows B-17... I can convert that to either glow or electric, correct?
Thanks

[RiBell]

1/2A refers to the engine size. I believe that it started with a Engine class called "A" and 1/2A was engines 1/2 the displacement or 0.50 ci or smaller
True 1/2A, Norvel 0.061's don't qualify but get accepted in the sprit of things today, unless you are going to a true 1/2A competition.
Rick

[T. Lyttle]

And in Britain, 1/2A includes 1.5s/09s!

[Aces High Tony]

Would it be smart to put 4 instead of 2 glow engines in a B-17?

[RiBell]

Originally posted by Aces High Tony
Would it be smart to put 4 instead of 2 glow engines in a B-17?
Personally I don't see any reason to not use 4 engines in a scale 4 engine bomber.
The only thing is make absolutely certain. that the engines run very good and that they run flawlessly. and that they hold their tune. Then using linkage not the needle valve get them running in sync the will not have to be exactly matched just close.
The more reliable the engines are the better the chances of success.

The Guillow's B-17 with 4 throttles 0.049's WOW that would be a lot of power.

I would think that you would be able to build a B-17 Oh something around a 60-70" wing span with flaps and retracts in the 6-7lb range and still have lots of power.
Rick

[RiBell]

Tony
Here are a couple of links to a couple of threads that I started a while back. the questions that I had, have been for the most part been answered. I just need to deside what I would like to persue with my 1/2A stuff.
The two things that I was thinking of doing were, an Edge 540 with a Norvel 0.061 or getting a mate for it and doing a Guillow P-38.
Anyway here they are:
How heavy of an aircraft will a Norvel 0.061 fly (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=161141)
and
Selecting an engine for a Guillow's P-38 (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=158556)
Hope that this will help.
Rick

[Aces High Tony]

Rick,
Thanks for the treads, I will save them for when the time comes. Now i'm just in the research part of it.
Well, what would you consider? People have been trying to steer me towards electric. Both sound fun, but I would like to stick with something that my hands have already gotten wet (meaning glow). Considering that I heard that 4 (.049) Norvels would be too powerful for a Guillows B-17 {45"WS}, I was also wondering if there are glow engines smaller and just as reliable. The mechanics are getting in the small range with a .049, it would be hard to imagine them getting even smaller, but with technology these days, who knows!?!? Give me your opinion and advise. Concrete facts>>> Guillows B-17 (smallest i could find) and prob. glow engines.....Can we make this work???
Thanks Tony

[Aces High Tony]

Also, I'm not sure if I understand the mathmatics of engine power versus wing area. Is that just electric or fuel, or both?
Thanks again
Tony

[RiBell]

Tony:
The Guillow B-17 with glow engines? I don't see any reason why you couldn't make it work.
I personally don't know of any throttled glow engines, that are smaller than the Norvel's, and that would be reliable enough, for a multi engine project. Doesn't mean there aren't any, I just don't know about them.

As John said why not just use two engines, and make the outboard's just mock-ups unless you need the power. I agree that it's kinda lame, and doesn't have as much cool factor but unless you need the power, the extra work and cost of two more engines, might be more than it's worth.

Also, I'm not sure if I understand the mathematics of engine power versus wing area. Is that just electric or fuel, or both?
I don't quite completely understand what your asking here. there is aircraft weight versus wing area giving the wing loading. This will help understand if it's going to fly like a brick or float like a feather. Or are you referring to the ability of the airframe to be able to make use of the power?
Rick

[easytiger]

Nope. THe only smaller engine that is reliable and has a throttle is the PAW03 diesel,and size and power wise, it is similar to the norvel.
No reason at all why you cannot do a Guillows Fortress with just the two inner engines, it would probably be much more appropriate power than FOUR norvels! I have seen it done, but with electric.

[Aces High Tony]

First off, I want to say thanks for all the help here. I've pretty much have taught myself so far, trial and error on one half and luck on the other, so bare with me, keep feeding my dome with information, and eventually (hopefully) we can all get some good video footage to watch. Anyhow, I guess I'm asking if there is a type of..."formula" that a builder could use to decifer whether or not an engine has enough balls to do the job? When a person builds from scratch, how does he know what size engine to use? And as far as electric goes, is there a wing load to engine power ratio? How does one know if their engines will have enough power? Thanks again. Oh yea, I do know that the more wing area, the more it'll float, yes????(considering the weight isn't out of this world) How does one figure out wing load?
Tony

[RiBell]

Wing loading is generally expressed as oz per square foot.
with regards to our models.
and all you do is to weigh the model in oz and divide that # buy the wing area in sq/ft (remember to divide by 144 to get sq/ft as most measuring of a model will be done in inches) wing area is just the wing span multiplyed by the wing chord. lenth x width just like a rectangle. adjust as nessasary for the taper of a wing if needed.

Most sport models fly rather well in the 14-20 oz/ft range.
slow parkflyers are a lot less and giant scale warbirds will get as high as oh 35? oz/ft I had a Edge 540 with 200 sq in of wing and it weighed 31oz after a lot of repairs it flew not great but it still flew. As the model gets smaller, you should for the lowest possible # that will still be strong enough.

With electric's there is a watt's per pound, rule of thumb.
Typically an 0.049 will fly a 16-24 oz plane with 175-220 sq in of wing area quite well.
Speed 400 electric motors are ballpark close to 0.049's for flyability.
Rick

[1705493]

The new kid on the block is the VA .049 MK2 RC that might be suitable for multi engine models. It has a neat, bolt on muffler along with a throttle that includes an adjustable airbleed for fine tuning the idle for better reliability. Reliability,, a prime consideration in multi engine aircraft. Available from Larry Driskill at Kitting It Together. See his ad in any Flying Models issue.

Haven't been able to figure out how to reduce the size of my pics to post on the forums but the VA can be seen in my gallery.

[1705493]

Another consideration is counter rotating props on twins. This along with outthrust is supposed to minimize one, or two engines out (on the same wing).

Also in my gallery is a pic of two VA .049 MK1s. One has a stock Cox crank installed and the other sports a Cox reverse crank. Both have throttles adapted from the Wasp .061 along with custom made mufflers. The throttles include adjustable airbleeds for improved reliability. And, both throttles are spring loaded to take out the slop in the cable system that will be used for activation.

These will be used in a sport twin.

[1705493]

Another engine to consider for small multis with the emphasis on throttle reliability is the MP Jets .061. Along with a very modern look, this engine also has a bolt on muffler and sports a true, two needle throttle. This one is available from www.carlsonengineimports.com

There was a review of this engine in MAN, I think, a few years back.

[Aces High Tony]

Thanks for the threads and info 175.... but I think that I'm just going to go electric. Two engines is "do-able" in a guillows b-17, but I'm going to go for the more realistic look and use 4 electric engines. Now just to figure out which ones.

[RiBell]

Tony:
Yah unless you go a fair bit bigger, having 4 engines running in sync and running reliably. electric is going to be a lot easier. I would think that something along the GWS IPS drives or the speed 280's would work well the Dare kit is an 80" span and is set up to use 4 geared speed 400's. and the guillow's kit is around 1/2 the size. I remember looking at the Guillow's kit in my local hobby store some time ago. The guy behind the counter claimed he had it worked out, as how to set it up. I'll check back with him and post what he claimed would work. Also post over in the parkflyers I'm sure that you will get a ton of responses. I'm sure you'll get everything from cheap brushed motors to high dollar brushless set-up's.
Rick

[Aces High Tony]

Yea, that'd be great! There is also a guy who did the whole conversion thing and just got his maiden flight yesterday. I'll send you the post. Anyhow, I'm sorta stuck on getting a Guillows b-17, so yea, it would have to stay kinda small. I would love to build HUGE GIANT SCALE!!! But you see, I have this problem...It's called "impatients"....yea...I get too anxious when building something excieting, so If it takes too much time, like a large scale, then i'll prbably opt not to buy. Thanks for the info and check with that hobby store (if it's not too much trouble).
Tony

[Aces High Tony]

Yea, that'd be great! There is also a guy who did the whole conversion thing and just got his maiden flight yesterday. I'll send you the post. Anyhow, I'm sorta stuck on getting a Guillows b-17, so yea, it would have to stay kinda small. I would love to build HUGE GIANT SCALE!!! But you see, I have this problem...It's called "impatients"....yea...I get too anxious when building something excieting, so If it takes too much time, like a large scale, then i'll prbably opt not to buy. Thanks for the info and check with that hobby store (if it's not too much trouble).
Tony

[Aces High Tony]

Yea, that'd be great! There is also a guy who did the whole conversion thing and just got his maiden flight yesterday. I'll send you the post. Anyhow, I'm sorta stuck on getting a Guillows b-17, so yea, it would have to stay kinda small. I would love to build HUGE GIANT SCALE!!! But you see, I have this problem...It's called "impatients"....yea...I get too anxious when building something excieting, so If it takes too much time, like a large scale, then i'll prbably opt not to buy. Thanks for the info and check with that hobby store (if it's not too much trouble).
Tony

[Aces High Tony]

Sorry, hit the submit button, too many times. lol. Here's that post. Read them all, it's pretty good.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=164809&goto=newpost

[RiBell]

Tony:
Just talked with the local store. He said that he was thinking of doing it with speed 400's direct drive I kinda think that would be an overkill. I got to page oh 12ish I'm going to read the rest of it, Looks like there are a couple of guys over there that seem to have a bunch of it worked out. It's very helpfull when others share their R&D here.
Rick

[T. Lyttle]

Yeah, if you build the kit as is, 280s would probably be fine; the kit builds quite light, just the thing for small fields.

[john8750]

You might think of GWS/LPS-RLC-A.
With a 5043 prop it weighs less than 1 ounce, pulls a little less than 2 amps, and puts out over 5 ounces ot thrust.
I use a 700 mah e-tech, for four motors a 1200 would be better.
Being a 4.8 volt motor I guess the small prop keeping the current down keeps it from having such a short life.
These motors will be used in my 60" B24.
I'm going for 30 ounces with 22 or so ounces of thrust.
I need thoughts about motor thrust, a very important issue.

[RiBell]

Oh man:
you guy's are making it real hard to get started on my giant scale F4U Corsair. So many cool things to try. arg!
Rick

[T. Lyttle]

Ain't that the truth! So many projects, so little time...

[RiBell]

Tony:
It took a while, but I finished reading the thread that you linked to, all 30 pages. now I kinda want to do one. I gotta build faster, and I need more time, and oh ya more $$$$.
Rick

[Tracon]

Just stopped in to say hi...

New lady friend in my life, and she wants to learn how to fly!!!

Yippeee

Sam

[ETIGER05]

RCM plans service had offered a set of plans for a JU-88 with a clever way around the losing one engine problem. nice trim plane for .049, JU-88 was good overall design. Dan Parsons built a large one in the reed days &flew it extensively.he's flow several other twins for years. He wrote at least one article for RCM on flying & setting up multis. very good reading, highly recommended. Larry Stenhouse has flown several twins & says reliability over power is what you need. you have gobs of thrust anyway with multi so "syncing " is not really neccesary