This started as my build log, but it's become a general source of information on this unique model, so we can compare notes on motors, props, lipos, etc. I've learned a lot from the other guys who have this plane. It's worth going back and looking through before you start yours!

With respect to the weathering, if you go back to the beginning of the build log you will see how the kit starts out -- I repainted mine with more accurate colors and markings. Twisted's is stock -- ones sold in Europe, stock, looked much more like my repainted example.

These never reached squadron service, and I think they were probably somewhat pampered -- as much as could be, given the deteriorating conditions in 1945. Short of damage and vandalism, I doubt the real planes got quite as weathered as the kit's covering depicts. Just my opinion. Personally, I like to do my own weathering

Thanks Smoothie i read the whole thread and learn very very much.

In one German e-shop, they recommend this 4s setup. Engine power is max 800w. Is it possible for the plane to fly with this setup at all?

they recommend this 4s setup

Before I started my build, I found a video with a link to a setup sheet of what the guy used -- an Australian modeler as I recall. I bookmarked the page, but I get an error message now. I remember pretty clearly that he used 4s lipos for power. I tried to find the video (must have been on youtube) but came up short. If I find it, I'll post. It seems to have worked for him.

I would be quite interested because it's my transition to heavier planes so I would like the lightest setup. So far, I've flown about 3-4 kilograms foam. It would definitely be possible to save around 1kg with 4s. The question is whether this makes sense for such exceptional aircraft. Dornier 335 should be a real rocket.

I'm not sure I'd recommend this model as your transition to ARFs -- maybe do one model not quite as heavy and challenging.

It might be interesting to run some motor and 4s options through e-calc. My recollection is that the 4s setup used higher kv motors and smaller props. He may have run two lipos, each one direct to an esc/motor (as opposed to how I am doing it-- one lipo going to two esc's and motors).

Just looked up the Pichler Boost 50 -- shorter than what many of us have used (often 5055) and higher Kv as I expected as well as smaller diameter prop. Not a cheap motor, it might be very good.

Originally Posted by MrSmoothie

I'm not sure I'd recommend this model as your transition to ARFs -- maybe do one model not quite as heavy and challenging.

I think it will not be a problem. I had over 25 models all warbirds and most of them were bought as ARF. Custom setups are my passion. This step is a must 🙂

I will try some calculations and experiments on Ecalc with 4s

I notice My battery life is a lot less after a flight using the 16x12 prop in front with no noticeable difference in performance. I did some research and found the full size Cessna 337 rear engine has to fly with a higher pitch to make up for the faster airflow from the front prop to get the same power setting. A higher pitch front prop may be just dragging the rear prop along. Anyway back to the 16x10 on both. Wish we had a 16x12 pusher.

Interesting observation. Maybe I need to try that too. I am very aware of the "common knowledge" that the higher pitch prop goes on the back -- you may recall my efforts to switch the props and rotation, but had issues with the built in thrust angles being opposite. I guess I have been rationalizing that the distance between the two props is so great that I could get away with the 16x12 on the front and get a little more speed. I wonder if the higher pitch prop simply uses more power?

When you get into this diameter prop size, there are few high-pitch pusher options.

I tried some combinations on the Ecalc.
Surpass 5065 is identical with the Turnigy SK3 5055, both 430kv, third the price cheaper.

The most suitable propeller seemed to be 14:10, but I didn't find a three-bladed one anywhere, so the choice would probably fall on MAS 14x9/14x7.
Nevertheless, I think that in the end I would still end up with a two blades.

A higher pitch front prop may be just dragging the rear prop along. Anyway back to the 16x10 on both. Wish we had a 16x12 pusher.

Rob87b:
Two more flights today -- first was with previous APC16x12E / 16x10P and was very nice. Good speed and power enough for comfortable Immelmann and Split-S.

Second flight, I gave your suggestion a try -- APC16x10E on front. The only difference I could tell was the sound was a more "whiney".

I flew both to the very end of the 5 minute timer and ended up 30% on the 6000mAh both flights.

But I will point this out -- I flew more WOT on the second throttle, being less timid with maneuvers and high speed passes. So it may well have been more efficient.

Of course, since I obviously can't leave well enough alone -- it made me wonder what might happen going to an APC 17x10E on front, so the pitch remains the same but pull more amps. Or, going to a 17x8 on front -- which would put a higher pitch prop on back, but probably pull as many amps on front as with the 16x10?

I will add that the model seemed plenty fast today with the 16x10's and I'm happy if this "is it".

Finally, I will say that on both flights I touched down on our grass runway (which is good but not perfect) and the gear held up just fine. Biting the bullet and switching to the E-flite retracts was a great decision that I should have done months ago. This model is a lot more fun when I don't have to repair/replace retracts.

As for retracting fully, I'm not opting for an added battery -- I *do* think that the two motors sucking off of one lipo doesn't leave much for the three retracts, however. So what I did today was leave the gear down until making the first fly-by -- cutting the throttle to about half, and pulling the gear up then, and they fully retracted.

Mr Smoothie
Through test, much more conclusive. Your future prop experiments will be interesting. I know that speed increases is not linear with power and some airframes reach a point it takes a lot of power increase just to go a little faster. Maybe that’s where we are. I would like to do some more tests too but it’s float season in the NW for now. Really glad your new nose gear works. I will have to look into doing that.

I know exactly what you mean about reaching that point of no real benefit speed-wise, and I think you may be right. Next time I fly it, I'll try to get some new video to give a better indication of the current speed. I looked at some of my video of the model's first flights with the 3-blade props and my sense is "there's a lot going on" but not a lot of speed, if that makes any sense.

I'm crossing my fingers on the landing gear and retracts! I was starting to avoid flying the Do335 because I feared I'd spend the next day fixing or replacing something.

Hard to believe that I've been flying this model for a year and a half now. If you discount the landing gear issues, I've only had one mishap -- a landing where I stalled inches from the runway and ripped out one main retract, with resulting damage to the mounts and adjacent wing skins, which repaired cleanly.

My first flight was ok but the second one I landed hard and ripped out the gear in right wing. All repaired but would like to replace the wing if they ever have spares in stock. Since then it’s been fun to fly.

I'm afraid that spares or complete ARF kits are going to be a while before being back in stock. The other day I was looking at all the major dealers to see what they actually have, and it's not much. A shame for them going into the holidays, which are surely big sales weeks for them. That's why I drove an hour and a half last month to Orlando to get a Hangar 9 P-51D 20cc when they got a few in stock. I figured they'd be gone fast and not replaced anytime soon.