I've converted the PICA FW190 to electric. Set up is:

Dymond MAX48 (480 w/ 2.33-1 box)
APC 9 x 6 prop
16A S/C
8 or 9 cell 600ae (Not sure which one yet)
flying weight: 29oz.

Any thoughts on how it will fly, maybe a better setup ?

Thanks !

Well, I figure 9 cells(1 volt under load) x 16 amps = 144 watts, 29 ozs =1.8 lbs, 144 watts into 1.8 lbs gives 80 watts / lb.
Not bad, only question is wether the pitch speed will match the plane.These little fighters like the high pitch speed, from my experience.... might try closer to 7x7 prop.
Just my opinion.....

Mark

Thanks Mark, My only concern with the 7 x 7 is the cowling is rather large on this kit. I am rather new to this so I,m not sure if this makes a difference. It seems there would not be enough blade to grab air. Maybe an 8 x 6 ?

Mike

Take a look at my Oscar from a few months back (E-Zone forum). It has a pretty big cowling. When the pictures were taken, I was flying it direct drive with an APC 6X3 prop that barely cleared the cowling. Now I'm flying it with a 7X6 APC/6VS400/Graupner 2.33:1/8 cells. It flies just as fast, but acceleration is much better. Yes, your model is heavier, but I doubt the cowling is any bigger & you're using a more powerful motor.

Bill B.

Bill, Do you have any trouble hand launching the Oscar? I have had problems with my Pica 109 and Mustang. My 109's current set up works fairly well.

Rocket 400 w/ 2:3-1 Drive
8 600AE
Aeronaut 8.5 x 5 Prop
16Amp S/C
24oz.

Flight times seem short (3min ?) and it seems to need to be flown at full throttle most of the time. I also flew it with a 6V 400 and 1:8.5-1 and 8 x 4 prop. It flew well at 3/4 throttle and flight times were longer but hand launching was touchy.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of going to the smaller 7 x 7 prop ?

Thanks - Mike

I cheated and put two finger-holes in the wing. I got the idea from a (larger) Balsacraft Sea Fury I built. The holes are round and are lined with 1/16" balsa, so their "walls" act as shear webs (I guess!). I just give the plane a hard toss, and it's off.

Are your batteries still working well? I fly the Oscar on both a set of 600AE's and a set of 500AR's (older ones), and I've been able to see how the 600AE's have not held up. Both packs are 2+ years old, and both worked equally well when new, but the 500AR's are definitely better now.

I suggest going down in diameter and going up in pitch.

Bill B.

Mike, did you ever get this plane flying well? I have the kit and am thinking about powerplant choices.

Mike
I had a Dymond 480 in a HOB P47 on 7 cells. I was not impressed with the performance. I have since changed to a Multiplex Turbo 450 on 7 cells (600AE) and the performance is much better. Do what you can to pick up the performance on the Dymond 480-nine cells is an option I hadn';t thought of .
Dave

Dave, I've got the HOB P47 kit as well. I haven't decided which of the two to build yet. I have a new P450 turbo motor that's waiting to go into something. Do you think the P47 could handle 800ARs with the 450 or would it get too heavy? Were you satisfied with yours?

Two things here: One is that "Model Designs" sells a plan for the fw190 in s400 size (32"span, 18oz), the Balsacraft FW190 is simply a 'scaled up' variant of that plan with extra weight and less performance than the s400 model..and it dosen't seem to disintergrate nearly as badly on bad landings either:-).. might try that as an alternate to a glow conversion.
The HOB 1/2A's are really too heavy for electric(but perhaps only ferrite) motors, the originals required an OS Max.10 to make their performance worthwhile at 22 to 26oz
There is an awfull lot of useless wood/weight in those models if built anything like the instruction pamphlet.

Gerald wrote ave, I've got the HOB P47 kit as well. I haven't decided which of the two to build yet. I have a new P450 turbo motor that's waiting to go into something. Do
you think the P47 could handle 800ARs with the 450 or would it get too heavy? Were you satisfied with yours?

Gerald, I did get a chance to try the 800 AR's as I tried the plane with a RS 1600 NMH pack Sunday. I think I'm giving up on this pack. The plane wallowed into the air, tip stalled and now I have some repairs to the wing saddle and mount. I had good luck with an 8 cell 600AE pack though and the Permax 450 Turbo is a definite improvement over the Dymond 480. I'm still trying to figure what prop to use to get the best flights. My Whatt meter is on order and should be here in couple days-hopefully then a lot of guess work will be eliminated.
I'll keep you up to date when I fix the plane and can test prop/bqattery combinations.
Dave

Dave, I just made up a 2:1 gearbox for my 450 turbo, so that should make life a little easier for the batteries. I can now use props in the 8"-10" range with it so it can work well with the big cowl of the FW190. Now I need to decide which to build first, the FW190 or the Jug. Does yours have landing gear?

Wow, you're using 600Ae cells on a turbo 450. How many amps does it pull? How is the power, is it enough? I'm only asking as I've read that the 600Ae cells wouldn't work on a larger motor than the SP400's. Have you tried checking the RPM's with the 600Ae's and then again with the 800Ar's? If my thinking is correct, you should see a noticable RPM increase with the Ar cells. Another cell that I've tried and is a match in size and weight for the 800Ar's is the 1400 Ae. I use many and they seem to be fine if you can prop the motor for less than 22 amps.

Gerald-My P47 doesn't have a landing gear. A gearbox sounds like a great idea. Remember the wing on all these planes is essentially the same. Just remember to make things as light as possible-remove stuff!
Greg-I flew the P47 with 8x600AE's. The plane had enough power and I was busy trimming it to really evaluate its power. It did fly with more authority than with the Dymond motor.
I have eight 800AR's but I think they'll be too heavy for this plane. I have them in a "hump" pack of 4x4. How else can they be arranged? They seem too long to put side by side and if you do an end to line of two wide the pack seems awfully long.
Dave