Question 25: "Jeff., what can you say about Nosen p-51 also who has a good giant spitfire plan? thanks Mike Chamberlain "

Jeff: "Hi Mike....here is a reply I had sent to another guy concerning a Nosen Mustang: Ah yes...a Nosen Mustang. I remember when I first started the hobby in 1985, and I saw a big Nosen Mustang available in magazines for $165 and requiring a .60 glow and up. Now, times have changed, and even monokoted and fixed gear, I think it would have been a difficult proposition to get one in the air with a .60 or even a .90. But, I ordered one and was excited. I was 20 years old. I got the box, opened it up with dreams of those similar to Ralphie and his Daisy Red Rider BB gun. I got the kit, opened the box, and about fell over. It was full of sheets and stick balsa/ply. I promptly sold it. I have learned a lot since then. I have learned that they are great flying planes, but a ton of work to build. The kits are of a very old design and require a lot of work to assemble. Plan sheets consist of just a fuse and wing planform view. Very little instructions. Lots of sticks. Lots of sanding. A real "builders" kit. Once built, they fly very nicely and are very strong and durable. Will require AT LEAST a 4.2, but look more for a 5.8 or larger for reliable performance. Depending on finish, expect it to come in from 27, which is the lightest I have heard of, and 51, which a friend of mine has, pounds. Personally, I would opt for a Ziroli, Top Flite or even a Don Smith before I tackled a Nosen. They will build in roughly 1/2 the times, and perform very well. If you are up to the challenge, a Nosen P-51 makes a very fine model.

As for a Spitfire, I would recommend getting in touch with Bob homand for a set of Brian Taylor plans. His Spit plans are the best in scale looks and shape. It builds just like a Ziroli, and flies very nice. I believe he offers them in the 70 some and 110 inch span. Bob Holmans web is: http://www.angelfire.com/ct/bhplans/"

Back To List

Question 26: "Joe, my name is Dwight Massey. I have been trying to find a set of giant scale plans for the Dehavilland Mosquitoe, perferrably a set of Bob Holman or similar. It has to be in the range of 96" and up, and to be powered by a set of G23 or larger, depending on the size of the airplane. So if you know of a web address or site that I can access it would be greatly appreciated. "

Jeff: "Dwight...I am aware of 3 choices for a Mosquito. Bob Holman offers plans of 76 and 124 inch span. Homan's web is http://www.angelfire.com/ct/bhplans/plans.html Another source is Don Smith, who has plans for a 109 inch Mosquito. Don does not have a web address that I am aware of, but he advertises in some of the large scale model magazines. A new option, but still in development, is a 110 inch model from de Havilland Models. Their web is http://www.de-havilland-models.com/Products/mosquito.htm I have a 124 inch Holman (actually Brian Taylor design) Mosquito. They fly great and are a lot of fun. Best twin I have owned."

Back To List

Question 27: "Hi, I am interested in building or purchasing a WWII TBF/TBM Avenger RC airplane. Can you give me any advise on where and how I can accomplish this. Thank you, Frank"

Jeff: "Hi George......well....those are a set of plans that are hard to find. There have been very few plans/models of this plane made. Ziroli has a set that he has been working on for about 3 years, but I don;t think they will be out any time soon. At Toledo 2002, Nick Sr. told me it would be approximately 2 years before he would release them. I built the attached (go here to see Jeff's Avenger) 124 inch TBF-1c from a set of Walter Otzell plans that were drawn in 1971. These plans are for a .60 size Avenger. I enlarged them at Kinko's to the size I wanted. these plans are advertised in the full scale warbird magazines, such as, Air Classics, Flight Journal, Warbirds, Fly Past, etc. The only other place I know to get Avenger plans are from Cleveland models http://www.clevelandairline.com/CM/CATALOG.shtml"

Joe Huntley adds: "SkyShark aviation is now open (Formerly Heritage Models) and they have a very detailed and scale 1/9th scale avenger their URL is http://www.skysharkrc.com/avenger.htm Joe"

Back To List

Question 28: "Hello Jeff... Jim Repp of Michigan here. Spitfire questions follow. Question: After 3 years, my FiberClassics Spitfire is now complete. (Modified into a MK 9 ) I have found no one who owns or flies this plane. How does it fly ? And more importantly, how does it land? Mine is powered with a Q 100 turning a 24-10 3 blade Mejlik ( 6" spinner ) Weight is about 34-35 lbs ( 102" ws). Do you think the Q 100 will spin this prop OK? Think it'll pull the plane OK? Or should I redo the spinner to a 2 blade ? AND ... I cowled in the engine completely like they show with an in line 3W 80. Air is piped through the fuse and ducted over the head. The big question is: will this cool the engine??? Both Radiators duct air into the cowl and duct work puts the air over the head and out the bottom. 1/2 of the "chin" scoop also feeds cool air into the same side of the inlet side of the cowl. Exit area is out the bottom of the cowl and I added 2 - 1 1/2" exit tubes on the firewall to let air go out the rear of the fuse by the tail wheel. I made a custom alum mount/muffler to keep the engine totally inside the cowl. I just hate to ruin the great looks of the Spit nose with a bunch of holes in it ! I figure I can add them later if I have to... now about that first test flight.... AHHHGH !! lol Thanks in advance... Jim"

Jeff: "Hi Jim...nice Spit! I have a friend that has owned 2 Fiberclassics, and from what I have seen, they are excellent airplanes. They fly very stable, and are very gentle landing. You will not have any problems with the plane. I have seen 5 in person, since the kit came on the market, and none of them had any problems in their flight envelope. Engine cooling seems to be another story. The cooling seems to be a hit and miss set-up, but a lot of it seems to be directed toward the inline twins people are installing, running the single carb set-up. This does not allow for adjustment of fuel to the hotter running cylinder. Dean DiGeorgio never did solve his engine cooling problems at Top Gun in 1998 when I was there. My friend had a 3W80 in his first Spitfire, and solved it by running a larger cooling duct hose through the cooling box to the engine, and adding a cheater hole to the cowl in front of the forward cylinder. What he did was make a squadron letter marking that was cut out of the fiberglass cowl. All put together, you could not tell that the "M" was not painted on. I thought it was pretty clever and have incorporated this on my Clarke Spitfire (awaiting test flights). I think you will have less problems with a single cylinder, since you will not have an extra cylinder sitting in the cowl baking from the other cylinder. In his new one, he has had no cooling problems with the inline twin, and is running the stock cooling set-up. I am not sure what twin engine he has in his new Spit. Now, as for the Q-100 and the 24x10 Mejlik, the engine will turn the prop, and pull the plane fine, but I think you may be a little disappointed with the forward speed. The extra blade, accounting for some deficiencies over a 2 blade, and the fact that it is only a 10 pitch, will limit your forward speed. The airplane will fly fine, but will appear a little slow in flight. If you can afford to get another spinner, I would recommend starting off with a 2 blade 24x12 and getting the plane dialed in. If you want to run a 3 blade, I think you could experiment with a 22x14, 24x12 and a 24x10 3 blade. Now I know that's not cheap, but if I were to recommend a 3 blade prop, I would go with a 22x14 for forward speed.. This is what I ran on one of my planes a few years ago. But, your 24x10 will pull the airplane just fine. Just to give you an idea, another friend of mine has a Don Smith 112 inch P-51 at 45 pounds, with a Q-100 turning a 22x16 2 bladed prop I gave him. GREASED LIGHTENING!!! Wish me luck on my Clark Spit as I will wish you luck on your Fiber Spit....let's go doodle bug tipping. Jeff "

Back To List

Question 29: "Jeff, in regards to your last post "TBF/TBM Avenger Plans or Kits", you listed a plans service Cleveland Model Supply. I checked out their website a bit and they seem to carry many, many plans of different scales. Some were actually quite large, B-17 308" WS. Are these plans designed for RC application, the website did not really state what the plans were for other than their quality and in some cases the smaller models being rubber powered. One of the reason I ask is I have never seen mention of a RC plane built from these plans and if they are designed for RC there is quite a selection. Thanks, Jay"

Jeff: "Hi Jay. To be honest, all I really know about the plans are that they are enlargements of their rubber band powered models. I do not know what there "gold series", etc. classifications represent in their quality rating. I do know that some extensive re-engineering has to take place to make a structurally sound model from their plans for RC flight. You will need some good building experience to produce a model from these plans. I list them as a source only. While I am not an expert, I do have a friend that is. What I will do is talk to a friend of my who is an old timer, and is VERY familiar with the Cleveland plans. I will get back to you, Jeff "

Back To List

Question 30: "I am planning on building a Meister Corsair and making some minor "tweaks" for realism that won't compromise airworthiness. I have 2 questions...1) what kind of flaps are recommended for the bird and how easy would it be to do?...2) is it better to mount rear stab and rudder servos near the rear and just run wiring back there or is it better to use "pushrods and actuator rods"?. Thanks for your time, Karl."

Jeff: "Hi Karl....I am afraid I am not familiar with the Meister Corsair. I have added flaps, post construction, on two Corsair planes. While it takes some worth, the results are worth the effort. The best I can recommend is what I did, which was to get a set of Ziroli plans, enlarge the flap sheets to give you and idea of what to do and kinda fake it from there. Being that you have not started the kit yet, it may be fairly easy to incorporate the mods as your build. This is what I would recommend with my limited knowledge of the Meister Corsair. As for servos, keep them up front if you can, and use pushrods. Nothing wrong with putting them in the back, but you will need additional noseweight to overcome the tail heavy effect. I would do which ever you find easiest. I did install servos in the rear on my large Corsair for easy and often inspection. Was less worried with appearance. Good luck....Jeff "

Back To List

Question 31: " Dear Jeff, I would like to modify some plans I got from Palmer. Could you recommend a computer program to help accomplish this task. I want to increase the size of the 132 inch C-130H to the around the size of Carl Bachhuber's Lancaster. The Warbird I want to build is the C-130 SPECTER Gunship of the Air Forces Special Operation Wing. Its a magnificent bird. I was in The US Army Special Forces and use to call them in for air support when we need to get our buts out of trouble. Any advice you have I would greatly appreciate. Mike"

Jeff: "Hi Mike....A SPECTER....even the name sounds cool! I typically just take my plans to Kinko's and enlarge them to the size I need. If you are interested in a computer program, I would defer that question to Joe Huntley, the construction moderator. I believe he has some experience with some of these programs. I, on the other hand, have none, and will not be of much help with this data. I have heard that this plane can demolish every square inch of a football field in one circular pass.....it is indeed a cool gunship. Good Luck. Jeff "

Back To List

Question 32: "Hi,I will be building my first low wing giant scale warbird, a Fairey FireFly 80" wing span, from Vance Mosher plans, it should weight in around 18 lbs,Im looking at a saito 1.50 to put in it,what do you think? to small, or should I go bigger? Dennis"

Jeff: "Hi Dennis, to tell you the truth, I have never run a 4 stroke engine, and am not that familiar with their power band. However, with a Fairey Firefly, I think you may be hard pressed to get it at 18 pounds with an 80 inch span, unless you skips items like flaps, retracts and glass/paint finish. Skip these, and you may hit 18 pounds. But, add these, and I think 20-23 pounds is more likely. Either way, I really think a 1.50 may be a bit on the anemic side. I think the wing loadings involved in a warbird such as this, will show that it will fly heavier than if it were a, say, 18 pound cub, or aerobatic plane. Therefore, you may not have the reserve power needed to get out of trouble if you need to do so.. You may be OK with a Saito 1.80. I am not really sure. I can tell you that if you were to run a gasser, which is what I would recommend, you will want a G-38 (1.8 cubes) or a G-45 (3.1 cubes). However, I realize that this may interfere with the clean, inline engine streamlining of the Firefly. Also, you may not be a gas engine guy. I can tell you as far as a 2 stroke glow, I am very familiar, and a Moki 1.8 or a ST3250 would fly the plane just fine. But, like I said, I am not familiar with 4 stroke engines. Hopefully, with the gas and 2 stroke engine comparison I have listed, you can better decide if a 1.50 will cut the mustard. Hope I have helped. Also, Lurch, the engine moderator, may provide a little more insight. Good luck with the Firefly...a neat plane. Jeff. "

Back To List

Question 33: "Hi Jeff This is a great site, well done and keep up the good work. I have been looking around for some time for a large 170" Avro Lancaster all wood construction and i cant find plans or a kit anywhere, do you have any ideas? Thanks for your help. Ed Sumner (Vienna -11 Degrees today!!!)"

Jeff: "Hi Edward...wow, we were a balmy +12 degrees here in Minnesota today. I am afraid I do not know of a Lancaster in that size plans. As you probably saw here at RCWarbirds, Carl Bachuber built a 170 inch Lancaster, but those were from his own plans. He is quite the designer/builder. I think you will be relegated to locating a set and enlarging them to meet your size needs. I am afraid the only Lancaster plan I know of here in the states is from Scale Plans and Photo Service. Their largest is a 90 inch span, I believe, but if you enlarge them 90 percent, you will end up with a Lancaster of almost exactly 170 inch span. Good Luck, it would make a fine model. Here is the website for the Lancaster: http://www.fly-imaa.org/imaa/IMAAads/pepino/nexusplans.html"

Back To List

Question 34: "Hi Jeff, Can you help me. I'm looking for a good plan and kit for a 60" to 80" D H Mosquito. Regards Brian R"

Jeff: "Hi Brian...I would go with the Brian Taylor plans for a 72 inch Mosquito. It is available from Bob Holman. I have a 124 inch Taylor Mosquito, and it flies great. As you may know, Brian Taylor is a designer from England. Good Luck. The best looking twin out there in my opinion....Jeff"

Back To List

Question 35: "I'm kind of confused on an engine selection for my Top Flite P-47. The test bird used a US 41. I have heard that this is not enough engine for it. Will a Zenoah G 45 Be better? thanks Robert Cline"

Jeff: "Hi Robert....engine choice will mainly depend on finished weight. A US41 would be a satisfactory engine if you were able to keep the weight down around 22 pounds. I have used this engine in a 25 pound Yellow Spitfire with great success. As you add weight, the US41 will fall of a bit, especially in emergency situations. You may not have enough to get out of trouble if you get too far behind the plane. At 22 pounds, a US41 would give you scale flight, and adequate power for flight. It will not be a speed ship and there will be a small reserve of power. That said, I would recommend a G-45 or similar (even a G-62)....a Quadra 52 is an engine I would highly recommend (same basic size as a G-45, but I have always been partial to Quadra engines). From the 3 I have seen, most are coming in around 25 pounds with a glass finish and one had a G-45 and the other two had G-62's. I think a G-62 is overkill. I am not one to overpower my models. I prefer to fly on the wing and not the prop. That is just my preference....some people feel otherwise. It comes down to personal preference. It is good to know that the P-47 has one of the best flying wings out there, and nothing seems to fly as nice as a jug. Good Luck.....Jeff "

Back To List

Question 36: "I hope that maybe you can help me. I am looking to build a big warbird. Maybe a Corsair or Mustang. This plane would be larger than the current 1/4 scale plans offered. I would like to enlarge these plans. My question is on the canopies for these large planes. Do you know of someone that could make the larger canopies for me so that the plane would look right? I have some old pictures of a guy in the UK that had 1/3 scale planes. He had several warbirds such as the Spitfire and the Corsair. I have tried to locate the web pages that he had but I cannot seem to find them. Thank you very much, Jesse Torrez"

Jeff: "Hi Jesse....I can tell you first hand, that, when you get in to planes these size, you have to scrimp, scrounge, beg, borrow, but not quite steal. Canopies and cowls are the main source of headache, followed closely by gear. Canopies are especially tuff. You can always make a cowl out of wood. I have also made canopies out of wood framework, with fitted plastic windows, such as I did on my P-40 and Avenger. If the plane has a birdcage type canopy/framework (P-40, Hellcat, P-47 razorback, etc.), it is a lot easier and cheaper to make up a wood frame with fitted windows. Once you get in to bubble type canopies (Corsair, P-51, P-47 bubble, etc.), the well of goods dries up real quick. You can sometimes scrounge around and find what you need. I found a 1/3 Corsair canopy in Ohio, and a glass cowl in Tennessee. 3 friends of mine found canopies and cowls for 10 foot P-47 bubbletops over in Germany and had them sent over the pond. Not cheap, but effective. Sometimes, you simply have to make your own plug and pull your own canopy (or find a RC company to pull it for you...they will often times do this if you make the plug). I have made plugs two different ways. I have made them out of balsa sanded to shape, and then glassed and sanded smooth down to 1000 grit for a good finish. This works pretty good, but sometimes you will get a fog in the plastic if there is moisture trapped in the wood (yes, it cam permeate the glass cloth). The better way, which I learned from Merlin Graves of IL, is to make a plug out of Durham's Rock Hard Wood Putty (available at hardware stores). What you will have to do is make a foam plug (pink or blue foam recommended) sanded to shape. Then glass this with 2-3 layers of glass cloth. Then take Acetone and melt the foam out. Sand an smooth the inside of the glass female plug as best you can. Then wax it with heavy coat of car wax. Fill this plug with the wood putty and let sit for about a week. Pop the putty out, fill and sand voids with more wood putty mix to get smooth. Then find a place to pull the plastic. That's about the best it gets for home cooking. So, I recommend you search high and low, and maybe you will get lucky. If not, then you have to do it yourself. It will definitely take time and money and patience to build one of these monsters, but the reward is worth the effort. You may also check out this website from the UK and get some leads from their forum board: http://members.lycos.co.uk/LMASiteUK/ Good Luck....Jeff"

Back To List

Question 37: "Hi Jeff, Barney Gaffney from NJ here. I have been following your Corsair build and have never heard of "Mass Balancing" and am curious about the lead in the rudder. Do you mean Mass Balancing as in making sure two side of an elevator weigh the same, or am I off in left field some place. Please explain the reasons for and benefits of the lead in the rudder and mass balancing to me, or any others that might be curious. Thanks BG"

Jeff: "Hi Barney....mass balancing is a term for balancing a control surface along its' hinge line. When you mass balance, the effect is that you have a control surface that will stay at neutral (level, if you will) by itself. To mass balance, you will need to run a line on your hinge line. I do this by inserting small nails on the extreme ends of my control surface, on the hinge line. Then prop the surface up on something (I use 2 Robart prop balancers). Then start adding weight until the surface balances. There are many ways to do this. Some people (me), just add weight to the air balance tab (the part of the control surface that protrudes forward of the hinge line). Byron always used a good method of adding fishing weight to a rod that protruded forward of the hinge line. Find what works for you. What this process will do is take the load off of the servo, by not requiring the servo to "hold" the surface at neutral. This can affect battery drain and control surface response time to inputs. This also helps eliminate flutter, by removing the force of the control surface weight fighting against the servo (an act of the control surface always wanting to hang down in the airflow)...an even bigger problem in some of the large aerobatic planes and the rapid control movements these planes can experience. But, even our warbirds can experience flutter in high speed flight, resulting from turbulence over the control surface. The larger control surfaces become, the more important this set-up becomes. Some people think you can just use a stronger servo to counter the effect of control surface weight, and you can....to a point. But, as control surfaces become larger, the potential for flutter becomes greater. So, mass balancing and sealed control surface joints become more critical. These act together to both smooth the airflow over the control surface, and not having a drooping, heavy control surface in this transition area. Many people fear adding this weight to the rear end of an airplane on surfaces such as elevators and rudders. However, they do it on full scale planes, so it is probably a good idea to do the same to our models as they approach 1/4 to 1/3 scale (or larger). The weight added is negligible when you consider the amount of wing area we are dealing with, and the overall weight of the plane. At these size, even 1/5 scale, wing loading really plays no factor in the planes flyability. At this point, we need to start thinking in terms of wing volume. My Corsair will weigh out at around 70-80 pounds. But, even with the tail weight I added (a little over 3 pounds total), my plane could still carry a 200 pound load under the wing if need be on one of my future bombing runs. I hope this helps....model magazines often discuss the topic, so keep an eye out. Until then...here is a good EAA web page discussing mass balancing:
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/authors/bingelis/How%20to%20Mass%20Balance%20Control%20Surfaces.html ..Jeff"

Back To List

Question 38: "Hello, I'm looking for Messerchmitt BF 109E plans, 1/5 scale or near that. Could you advise me, please? Thanks in advance BRGDs Domingo. P.S. RC Warbirds is a great site, indeed..!!"

Jeff: "The only plans for a 1/5 scale range E model that I have seen are from Jeff Foley of Top Gun fame. However, I am not sure these are commercially available. Those are the only plans that I am aware of for an E model 109. Dave Platt offers a nice set for a G model at 79.5 inches, and Meister for a G model at 102 inch span. A rare model subject. Sorry I could not help more. Good Luck in your search...Jeff "

Back To List

Question 39: "Greetings, being new to giant scale I have a couple of questions regarding a 132"ws C-130 from Palmer Plans. First off some stats. Gross wing area 1745.0 sq. inches. Wing loading, 28.52oz.per sq. foot. length 97.75" Target weight 22lbs. 7 channels 13 servo's. I would like to run scale 4 blade props, so a gentleman in New York is going to custom build them for me on his cnc machine. Now the problem. I would like to use 4 RCV-90's which are a bit longer than the MVVS .47 engines that are required. Therefore I have to move the firewall back in each nacelle 1/4 each. Behind each engine is where the fuel tank was supposed to go on the plans, but with the larger RCV-90 there is not enough room. Question 1. Can I place one central fuel tank in the center of the fuselage, and run fuel lines to each engine and then use Perry pumps at each engine? Question 2. I would like to use intelligent on board glow for reliable idle and because the engines are cowled in. Question 3. Will the central tank effect CG to much, according to the plans I think there enough room right at the CG to place the tank. Question 4. I would like to use twin RX and Batt's for back up as well as Gyro's on the rudder and aileron's, more so on the rudder in case of engine failure to correct yaw. I have talked to RCV engines and Perry Pumps and was told that running the RCV-90 on pumps over 30"of fuel line should not be a problem. Am I headed for disaster with the center tank idea. But the thought of 4 RCV-90's turning 15x12 4 blade sure is appealing. The gentleman who is making them will thin the blades out to reduce drag as much as possible. Thanks. Joe."

Jeff: "Hi Joe...sounds like quite a project. First off, I must say that I am not familiar with the RCV-90 engines. Have never even seen one. As for a central fuel tank, I have seen this done on a twin, but never a 4 engine plane. I would question the efficiency of running 4 fuel lines from one tank and obtaining adequate fuel flow to all 4 engines. But, it may work, as long as you use the Perry pumps, you may be okay. I would maybe mock up an engine with the long length of fuel tube you will have and see how the engine runs. IF it did work, as long as you place the central tank on the CG, it would not present a problem. Personally, I would prefer to keep the tanks in, or near, the nacelles. IF you cannot get then to fit in the nacelle, behind the engine, you may look at mounting the tanks in the leading edge cavity, just adjacent to the nacelle. I had a friend do this in his royal B-17 years ago, and it worked well. I think on board glow is a good idea. My recommendation would be to make a system that keeps the plugs lit at all times. You will gain RPM, and will not have all the monkey motion of wiring and adjusting. I always felt that market available on-board glow systems were too complicated and too expensive....some needing a 40 dollar 800 MaH battery to light all 4 engines.. Whenever I used them, I just ran wires from a 1.5 rechargeable battery with an on/off switch. Keep it simple and you will have less problems. I like the idea of twin receivers. You will have a lot of money in a plane such as this, and an additional 125 dollar receiver is well worth the insurance. Personally, I have never liked gyros, and only tried one once. From my experience, with a 4 engine plane, an engine out will not present much of a problem, easy trim change. If you loose 2 engines on the same side, even a gyro will not help you...the plane is a goner. I lost my Palmer B-24 last year to a one side, dual engine out last summer. Risk you take with multi's. If you would feel better with gyros, then I would say invest in them for ease of mind. Again, a small investment for a plane of this magnitude. Good Luck.....Jeff"

Back To List

Question 40: "Hi, I'm planing to build a 100" winspan Corsair, weight about 30 to 35 lbs. Do you think I could use Graupner C5077 servos on the elevator (one on each surface) ? These servos are 5.00 kg.cm, about 69.5 oz.in.torque Thank you
Bernard Dumas"

Jeff: "Hi Bernard...those servos will be fine as long as you do use one per elevator. Plenty of safe power. Good Luck!..Jeff "

Back To List

Question 41: "Hi ya Jeff Berry here from West Australia... The ongoing discussion at my club is about beefing up wiring in bigger models...... It is driving me mad I tell ya.. Do you rewire your servo's for your large models or do you still use standard wiring ? Thanks mate..... Berry."

Jeff: "Hi Barry for wiring, I do go up to 22 or 20 gauge AGW vs. the standard 24 gauge from Futaba/Airtronics, etc. But, I typically now use dual receivers and a servo isolator so that it is not as critical. In speaking with an electronics guy, I am told that even the 24 gauge will handle up to 12 amps continuous load with no problem, which is a fair bit more than our servos/radios will typically put out. Again, this is what I am told, but have no proof from my knowledge. Seems it may come down to personal experience and preference. But, I still prefer to go with 20 or 22 gauge wiring on my larger models. Take care....Jeff"

Back To List

Question 42: "Do you know where I could find a good R/C P51 Mustang in the 500 dollar range for a gift for my father? Scotty"

Jeff: "I would check in to the World Models ARF. You can order them from a local hobby shop. A good deal with an 80 inch span and flies nicely from all reports. Check this website for details: http://www.airborne-models.com/html/scale.html#mustanggssilver. If you do not want an ARF, it would depend on if you wanted to build one or buy on built. What size would be of interest"

Back To List

Question 43: "what is a good engine to put in the ziroli p-51 that will fit under the cowl and soud real as it can and do you know of any where to get a nice scale 4 blade prop for the p-51 any thing you can tell me will help thanks nick"

Jeff: "Nick....the Ziroli will take anything from a 3.7 up to a 7.3 cu.in engine. If you want streamlined fit and looks, and willing to spend the money, go for the 3W inline series engines...something like an in line 6.6 cu.in. I think the best, all around engine will be a 4.2 or a 5.8 type engine. Even a Quadra 100 will do nicely. As for a 4 blade scale prop, You will more than likely have to make your own from a bundle of wood. The Fiberclassics and 3W static props would be too large for the Ziroli. I do not know of any available on the market that will fit the Ziroli. ...Jeff "

Back To List

Question 44: "Hi Jeff, Still on the subject of true scale, what lines and other changes need to be made on the Top Flight Giant Mustang to make it more scale? Regards, Don Beason "

Jeff: "Hi Donnie...To be honest, I am not that affluent on scale design. For me....if it looks good, it is good. I know A LOT of changes would have to be made to make more scale appearance, but I do not honestly know what all they would be, so would not hazard to guess, and therefore cause you potential problems down the road. Maybe Joe Huntley can help you out better. He is into the scale masters scene. Sorry...JEff "

Back To List

Question 45: "Hello, This is a great website. I plan on building a true to scale P-38 this fall. Of course this will be after the Pica Twin Mustang F-82 that I just purchased and will be starting this Saturday. I will be looking for a good set of plans to start the process and would love to get feedback on the better sets that are out there. I'm looking for something in the 1/5th to 1/4th scale. I enjoy building and have had the taste to build the P-38 for many years. I now possess the skills and can financially support the project without my wife leaving. I'm very patient and have an eye for detail so it may take me a little longer then most. As my wife has told me many times, when I start on a project I get so caught up in it that I will not stop until it is complete. When complete, of course, I see all of the flaws and areas for improvement but that is how you learn. Thanks for the great site, Al Seaton Minneapolis Minnesota"

Jeff: "Hi Al......for a starting point, I don't think you can beat the Ziroli P-38 plans. They build nicely and fly great. With some work, they can produce a very scale plane. The Ziroli is 114 inches and can be all built up, or you can purchase the fiberglass booms to save you some work. If you want a little smaller P-38, with not as much building, the Yellow P-38 is also a fine ship. This is a fiberglass body with some presheeted foam core outer wing panels and some other fiberglass parts. Very little building is involved in the Yellow P-38. But, there is plenty of assembly work to be done. I have seen both do well at scale meets, as well as Top Gun. I am 3/4 finished with a Ziroli P-38 right now. I have flown both the Ziroli and the Yellow. Both are nice flyers. Good Luck....Jeff "

Back To List

Question 46: "Can you send me some pic of a Don Smith p-51 i am looking to buy one but have never seen one any thing will help thanks nick"

Jeff: "Nick....While I have a friend that is flying a Don Smith Mustang, I do not have any pictures of this model, or any other Don Smith. Based on my friends, I can tell you they are fairly accurate in scale appearance and fly nicely. His is 48 pounds with a Q-100 in the nose. They are a fair amount of work to build, but can be done with great results. You may wish to check this website for a pic of the DS P-51. http://www.b-17.nl/catalogue.htm "

Back To List

Question 47: "Hi Jeff, I am getting ready to do a Ziroli P-40 from an Aeroworks kit and want to modify it to a N model from the current D configuration. What would be the easiest way to accomplish this? I am sure you have done it yourself. Also I read the last item concerning the engine choices for the Ziroli P-51 and was wondering if my selection of a 3W 70i is a proper engine choice for this bird, or should I go to lets say a Brison 5.8. I bought the 3W for this project, but I have others I can use it on. Thanks Barney Gaffney"

Jeff: "Hi Barney....unfortunately, I am not all that in tune with the various intricate changes in airplane models and variants as some folks. I know an F4U-1 from a -4 and -5 and an F2G, and the likes (P-51B/C vs.D and an SBD 3 vs 5), etc.. However, when you talk of the intricate structural differences, I'm out to lunch. I can tell you a few differences in that the P-40N was built with a lighter undercarriage, including smaller wheels, but cannot tell you how much smaller. Most all P-40N also left the factory with only 2 machine guns in each wing, vs. the old style of 3. However, provisions were still there to install the 3rd gun in the field. I know the P-40N-5 had a frameless canopy, along with later models having thee stretched clear canopy hood behind the pilot. Also, the tail was stretched to compensate for the heavier engines and increased speeds to maintain lateral stability. This put the elevator hinge line further forward of the rudder hinge line than on the P-40D. That is about all I can tell you. Maybe Joe Huntley has more insight as he is in to the scale masters arena. Here is a website you can check out as well http://www.vintageaircraft.com/page5.html. As for the 3W70 in the Ziroli P-51, I think this would make an excellent engine choice. They are pretty powerful for their size, and the rear carb cleans up the front end. You will probably still have a muffler poking out. For a real streamlined engine, you could always check in to a 3w100 inline. I have found that a 4.2 is a great fit for the Ziroli P-51. A 5.8 will be a lot of engine for this plane, but you can always throttle back. If I were in your shoes, I would use the 3W70. Good Luck"

Back To List

Question 48: "I have finished a 72" A-10 made of blue styrofoam. It weighs 5 1/2# less engine and fuel WA. is 6.7 sq. ft. It has 12 AGM anti-tank missiles on it. I know it has the most drag of any plane. I want to use a single 2 cycle in the nose at first. What Super Tiger and prop would you use for 40-45mph at 1/2 throttle? I have a 48" Spitfire with a ST 90, it is a joy at anything I try with it --flies straight up or backs down to ground. I would like the A-10 to be similar in ability. Thanks for any help, Rich."

Jeff: "I would say a ST .75 or .90 is the power you want for that performance...Jeff"

Back To List