Question 121: "hello jack. I hear all these recommendations that vary widely so I thought I would ask you. my question is, I am in the building stages right now of a ziroli bearcat and I was wondering what a good engine would be for this airplane. I was looking at a zenoah g62 but some people say it will be underpowered.and others say it would be fine. right now the plane looks like it will weigh in the mid 20's lb range.give or take a few depending on engine. and also how should the plane fly at that weight. any input would be greatly appreciated. gene. tx"

Jack: "Hello Gene, The Ziroli F8F Bearcat will fly very well on a G-62 and give you very good performance. If you are not building a race type aircraft there is no need to go over the G-62 in this airplane. It has an excellent wing and flies like a good fighter should. It has very effective flaps and very responsive tail surfaces. Go easy on the elevator controls. More is not better on this airplane! If you were asking me for the motor of my choice in the Ziroli Bearcat it would be the Zenoah G-62. Good power, easy starting and reliable. That’s a great combination in my book! I have seen this plane fly very well at over 32 pounds but that plane has more power than the G-62. In my experience the G-62 is usually adequate for most planes up to about 28 pounds.

You will like this airplane. It flies very well and it catches lots of looks at the flying field because there are so few of them out there. Good luck on this project Gene. Keep us posted! Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 122: "Hi Jack, I was interested in building the 140" wingspan DC-3 by Ziroli plans. I've never flown twin powered planes before and was wondering if this would be a bad first twin plane. I've flown the Jerry Bates Hellcat and that's the only war bird that I've built and flown. Can you tell me how this plane will fly in the air. Thanks......Ben"

Jack: "Hi Ben, The Ziroil DC-3 is really a very nice airplane and one that flies very well. It is huge buy most standards but it flies gracefully and has good stall characteristics. It needs flaps and make sure you build them. With any twin or multi engine aircraft the single most important thing is reliable engines. Model engines get better every year and with the vast improvements you can rely on both engines performing flawlessly if they and their fuel systems are properly set up and maintained. A dead engine during flight is an emergency that can be difficult to deal with so prevention of the engine out condition should be your highest consideration as you approach this project. Make sure you use strong metal geared servos for the flight surface controls and keep weight to a minimum where ever possible. The DC-3 will have a real presence at the flying field and will get plenty of attention. Ziroli’s kits are known for their great flight characteristics so if you build it correctly, have two good reliable engines on board and a good radio setup with sufficient battery power to run everything I think it would be a great airplane project to take on. There are a few twin ARF type aircraft that might let you learn the feel of a twin in the air and would give you some added confidence when it comes time for your DC-3 to take flight. Again just make sure that the engine setup is correct and that the two engines run well at all power levels before you fly. Good luck Ben. Keep us posted with your progress. Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 123: "dear jack i need some advice as iam building my first r/c warbird kit , do you think that if i get a park flyer to help me learn to fly would that be a good choice even thought iam going to join a flying club when the plane is finnished. yours faithfuly Neil"

Jack: "Hello Neil, Welcome to the wonderful world of RC Warbirds. Some of the park flyer type airplanes are really quite easy to fly as they have very
light wing loading but most do not fly well in the wind. About 5MPH winds will keep most of them on the ground except in the hands of an experienced
pilot. The other limitation on most park fliers is few of them have full flying surface control. Most use three channels for flight and the combination will vary from Throttle, Ailerons and Elevator to Elevator, Rudder and Throttle. Either combination will fly an airplane but neither give you complete control. I prefer new pilots start flying with four channel setups that have direct radio control over the Elevators, Rudder, and Ailerons so the student pilot learns to use all of the flight controls. I preach about rudder input all of the time and new pilots that learn to fly without using the rudder in normal flight ( believe me there are many of them) never learn how important the rudder is when it comes to flying a Warbird. The rudder has a distinct presence on every airplane but with you desire to start flying some heavy metal you will never master this type of aircraft without learning to fly with the rudder.

Your idea about joining a club is a very good one and most clubs have guys that are always willing to help a new pilot. Check out the flying field and talk to the people that you meet there and it should not take long to find the right person to get you started. Most of the Warbird kits that are out there can easily be built with radios that have trainer cord capability and flying on a buddy box where an experienced pilot gets your airplane into the air and then with the flip of a switch he can give you control of the airplane while it is in flight. He can resume full control of the plane at any time if you get into trouble and this means that while you learn you can enjoy a very good safety blanket that should extend the life of your model. Most of the park fliers do not have this capability. The ones that you have to add your radio receiver to can be set up for the trainer chord linked buddy box type of flight instruction. I highly recommend this to every new pilot. It is such a shame to see a new model crash on it's first flight and doing the learning under the watchful eye of an experienced pilot and using a buddy box really increases the possibility of learning to fly RC aircraft successfully.

High wing aircraft are best for learning and there are hundreds of them out there. I recommend a good high wing trainer to learn and them make the
transition into a good warbird. They are all fun to fly and once you learn how to fly the choices are endless, Good luck Neil! Keep us posted, Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 124: "Jack, I am a scratch builder and have aquired a set of ziroli plans for the p40. My question is why do most giant scale planes reccommend a gas engine rather than a large glow. Must be some reason as the gas engines cost much more. thanks John"

Jack: "Hi John, This is only my opinion but gas powered model airplane motors are more reliable than glow motors and far easier for the average modeler to get set up to run correctly. The second reason is there aren’t many glow motors available that are big enough to power most of the Ziroli designs. His P-40 design is a very large airplane and a good builder will have great difficulty keeping the weight of that airplane under 30 pounds ready to fly especially if you add scale detail and retractable landing gear. I know there are several large glow motors available like the Moki 2.10, OS BGX or the Super Tiger 4500 or the big Saito four stroke motors but in my opinion none of them have enough power to handle the Ziroil P-40. The Zenoah G-62 is a very reliable motor and is a good match for this airplane and it is available through most hobby supply businesses for about $400.00. It would save the difference in price in fuel savings alone over a hungry large glow motor in a flying season. Another large plus is the big gas burning motors don’t leave oil residue all over your model after you have flown it and that extends the life of the airframe considerably as well. I started into big models using glow power because over the years flying smaller models I had become very comfortable dealing with glow power but having used only gas power over the last ten years I am convinced that they are a better choice. The Ziroli P-40 is a very nice kit and is a very good flying airplane and I’m sure you would enjoy flying it but dollar for dollar I don’t think there are any reasonably priced glow fueled motors that match the requirements of this airplane. Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 125: "Hello Jack, I just come across this website and have been reading some of the Q&A's I like it !! I have Byron P-51 that I've been working on for about five years and have a few of questions. (1) I have the plug-in wing version and it uses a servo for each aileron. The connection on the aileron uses a ball and socket, should I think about using a different connection or is this sufficient. (2) Are the flaps hinged. I didn't read any where in the manual on hinging the flaps. (3) I'm using a single pushrod with a Y at the end to operate the elevators. It seems to move freely, but when connected to the servo the servo is humming. Should I use a high torque or a quarter scale servo. Thanks Vince"

Jack: "Hello Vince, The Byron P-51 Mustang has long been one of my favorite airplanes. I have owned mine for about 16 years and it’s still flying. They are high maintenance airplanes if you have the four blade prop and the reduction drive but that big four blade prop always impresses people at the flying field when they see it in the air. I converted mine to the Mustang 50 motor from the original Quadra 42 about ten years ago and though I’ve repainted the plane twice and replaced the drive system bearings and drive belts a couple of times everything else is original. I have the ball and socket linkage on mine for the aileron linkage and it has worked very well. Mine is the one piece wing early design and it was originally designed to use one servo in the center of the wing for both ailerons but I changed that design and installed a separate servo for each aileron outboard on the wing and used high torque servos on each one. Still has the original aileron servos but I have changed the ball links just as insurance a couple of times. To move the servos out to the ailerons I cut a servo pocket into the bottom wing skin with a sharp hobby knife, The original cutout piece of wing skin is the servo pocket cover and I built a plywood box inside the wing to mount the servos. It was actually a very easy conversion and this setup has been trouble free. The two servos are Y harnessed together and plugged into one channel on the receiver.

If I remember correctly the flaps on your version of this plane are not hinged but work on a torque rod that is hinged by a bearing block at each end of the flap. The inner end of that rod is driven by the servo to actuate the flap and the outer section of the flap plugs into the inner section with a square drive nylon coupler and the system works very well. Byron recommended a high torque 180 degree servo that was built by Ace RC for the flaps and it took seven seconds for the servo to transition to full down flaps. It dumps the flaps much like the real Mustang and all that is required on my plane which is driven by one of those slow servos is a small amount of down elevator input when the flaps are lowered. I dialed that command into my computer radio and 6 degrees of down elevator added proportionally with the flaps keeps the plane flying level. The flaps slow the plane down very quickly and you need to manage your power setting with the flaps down. Maintain airspeed by increasing power and keep the power up until you are on the final leg of your approach and then control the decent with the throttle. These plane fly much like the full scale and they are a blast to have in the air. I hope you finish yours and fly the heck out of it because I assure you, you won’t be disappointed.

I never use a y type linkage on a big bird for anything. Each elevator should have it’s own servo and separate pushrod. Remember this if you loose the elevator you loose the airplane and I don’t care what you piloting skill level is. No elevator always leads to a crash.. You will never regret going with separate servos here and half the elevator working will allow you to get the plane back safely to the ground. After I bought my first computer radio I removed the Y harness from the servos and plugged the other elevator into aux channel one on the receiver and then slaved that channel to the elevator channel. Set up this way the chances of loosing both servos controlling the elevator is very slim. I also use dual 2500 mah batteries in all of my big airplanes. Another cheap insurance policy!!! As for the humming servo that is a warning!!!! One of two things is happening. The servo is being loaded which prevents the pot in the servo from reaching center without a torque load or the contacts in the servo are bad. I’d bet on the first sinerio.

Get rid of the Y linkage and install another servo and a separate pushrod for the other half of the elevator. I hope this information will help you Vince and that you will enjoy your Mustang as much as I have enjoyed mine. Good luck and keep us posted!!! Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 126: "Jack, You write that you feel the P-47 is one of the easiest warbirds to fly. How would you compare it to the PT-19? Karl Watts"

Jack: "Hello Karl. It’s difficult to compare a high performance fighter to a primary trainer type aircraft. The PT 19 is a great flying airplane and it is easy to fly but it loads the wing differently because it is a lighter aircraft . Even with model aircraft there is a difference in these two planes. I made the statement based on consideration of the true fighter aircraft that we model and I stand behind that statement because the P-47 is just a really great airplane to fly. It’s solid in the air and with moderate power applied you can get really comfortable with the P-47 very quickly. It doesn’t have any tendencies to get an RC pilot into trouble and with the flaps lowered it remains stable at very slow airspeeds which makes it easy to land. In comparison to the PT-19 you will find another very manageable plane but one that simply does not possess the higher speed flight characteristics of the P-47. By design they are very different aircraft but I would agree that both are easy to fly. An advantage with the PT-19 is the fixed gear and the low speed flight envelope, I’m sure you could mount enough power on the PT-19 to make it fly faster but it would sure spoil the intent of the aircraft’s design. The PT-19 is a floater and a very gentle airplane to fly. It is not crisply responsive like the P-47 and that will be an advantage to a new giant scale pilot. If you are looking at an easy airplane to fly that helps you make the transition into big model airplanes and one intended to be easy to fly the PT-19 would be a good choice. It is a solid airplane that is and was designed to be a trainer aircraft. As for the P-47 it is not a trainer aircraft but compared with the other true fighter aircraft that are flown by modelers it remains my recommended choice for the easiest to fly. I hope this helps Karl and good luck with which ever of these two planes you choose."

Back To List

Question 127: "RE: Carbon fibre Byron p51 blades.. Is anyone making them because I want a set. I haven’t heard a thing for over a year on this. I heard that Ironbay sells replacement blades that are stiffer than the originals – is this true? Any new news on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Andrew Squires "

Jack: "Hello Andrew, The guy from Italy that was originally going to do them has finished his molds and is producing the blades. Get on RC universe and do a search for the carbon fiber blades and you will find his contact information there. I have not seen any of the “new” Iron Bay blades but I don’t think Iron Bay changed anything in that production process. I’m not sure because I have not seen a set of them. The original blades looked great but they are absolutely useless above 3600 RPM. I would think the carbon fiber blades would increase the output performance of the reduction drive immensely. Especially if you are using the Mustang 50 over the Quadra 42. Sorry I don’t have his direct contact info. Please share what you find out! Jack Devine "

Back To List

Question 128: "Jack I have written you a letter a while back about my corsair and how I was afraid to fly it.. You replied to the letter with a very nice letter in return I saved that letter and read it almost daily, till I grew the confidence to finally maiden the corsair. I taxied for 3 days to get the feel of handling then a faster taxi till the tail came off the ground. then I just poured the coal to her, held it on the ground a little up elevator and it rotated nice and clean. I flew it two weeks (7 times) 8th time, the motor dies down ten feet up and down it comes... tip stall ! The nose and engine break clean off . surprisingly no other damage it is all fixed. I think stronger and better than new can't even tell it was crashed. Anyway I want to thank you for the nice instructions on how to fly it and what to look for. The do's and dont's.You helped to build the confidence I needed. This KMP corsair is a 72" WS with a OS 1.20 four stroke I am using a 16/7 prop, do you think this is to big ? The plane weighs 14 pounds. And how far should the flaps go down?
By the way when I rebuilt the nose it only gained 1.5 ounces. I realize the crash was all my fault and I will learn my mistake next time! Thanks for all your help and advice Greg"

Jack: "Hello Greg, It's always nice to hear from someone that got some use out of the tips and flying information I have written for RC Warbirds. It's especially nice when we welcome a new Corsair driver to the ranks of the pilots that fly these great models.
The Corsair is not an easy airplane to fly and when you finally have some success with it, it makes all the work so worthwhile. I know the jubilation you felt when you had a good flight and nailed that first landing. All of us have enjoyed that and I don't think that feeling really ever goes away when you are flying a Corsair.

Dead stick Corsairs are always a handful especially when you are low and slow. NEVER try and stretch a landing with one because if you have an engine out situation you won't make it. That ugly tip stall will take a big bite out of your airplane and it usually ends your flight day with a severely broken airplane. If this ever happens again you will be much better off taking immediate advantage of what little energy the plane has. Keep the nose down!! If you don't have a good landing surface get your gear up and land as softly as possible without trying to turn. Once the plane gets into ground effect you can bleed off the airspeed and just let it settle in. You will get a few scratches but not a broken airplane. If you have flaps down retract then just before it touches down.

The real Corsair had 55 degrees of flaps available. In my experience about 30 degrees works very well for our models. If you have more flap deflection than 30 degrees you need to pay extra attention to airspeed because the flap induced braking effect will be huge. You will need to manage power to maintain your approach attitudes. Keep them steep and let the flaps do their job. Adding power flattens out the approach and reducing power steepens it. The throttle controls the approach. Use the ailerons to keep the wings level and the rudder to make your course changes. It takes practice Greg but get it down and you will get to the next level of
enjoyment once you get the hang of it. Thanks again for your kind comments and stay in touch. My email is jdevine97@comcast.net. Take care Greg Jack Devine."

Back To List

Question 129: "Hi Jack! I have been flying r/c scale for many years and am fairly accomplished with WWI and golden age planes. But I am now making a jump (leap) to WWII with a ziroli p-40 I think I’ll be ok flying but I am a bit concerned About takeoffs, I fly on a grass field that is probably about 70 yards long. Will this be enough to safely get this plane in The air especially with a gradual throttle advance? Thanks, Andy"

Jack: " Hello Andy, The Ziroli P-40 is a very nice airplane to fly but like all P-40s it has it quirks. P-40s are not easy to handle on the ground but with your biplane experience I’m sure you have had plenty of experience flying with the rudder. You will need a good bit of right rudder for takeoff and if you add the right rudder input early in your takeoff run you will find the takeoff roll very manageable. Do not jerk a P-40 off of the ground but rather let it fly off easily with only a hint of up elevator. The tail will come up as soon as you add power and you want the model to run on the main gear until you have achieved a safe takeoff speed. Manage you climb out carefully and don’t try and climb steeply. Once you have a safe airspeed built up I think you will find the P-40 is a very nice airplane to fly. The Heavy Metal WWII warbirds are energy fighters not floaters like the biplanes. Maintain good airspeed while you are flying and use your flaps to land. The flaps are very effective and your airspeed will bleed off very quickly so be ready to add power once the flaps are down. Give yourself the maximum takeoff room you have available but I see no reason your P-40 won’t fly within 50 yards of takeoff roll. If you have any headwind it will be even shorter. It usually takes about 100 feet to get one airborne and I would not consider anything smaller than a G-62. on the Ziroli model. Climb straight out after takeoff and give your self time to build at least 50 feet of altitude before you even start thinking about turning. In the air this plane is all business and it will go exactly where you tell it to. It’s a fairly fast model but a very predictable model once you have enough airspeed. Good luck with your P-40. Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 130: "hi jack, i have seen that you wrote that you have a p-40 with a super tiger 90 engine. i wanted to aks you what is the best p-40 arf for this engine... what company does your warhawk come from? and what do you think about the hangar 9 p-40? thank you, erez, israel."

Jack: "Hello Erez. I like the Super Tiger .90 engine for a couple of reasons. It produces very good power with reliable idle speeds and the best part is that it’s one of the most reasonably priced motors available. I think this plane would fly the Hanger 9 P-40 without any problems. The hanger nine kit is very light and the Super Tiger 90 will haul a 13 pound plane around easily. I have the Top Flight Gold Addition P-40 and a Giant scale P-40E from my model company. It is an 82” span model and it’s powered with a G-62 gas motor. The Hanger 9 P-40 would be a good choice but with all ARFs I recommend you inspect the model very carefully when you receive it and reinforce any thing that appears to be lightly glued together with epoxy to insure your airframe has good strength. Good luck with picking a P-40 and getting it flying. Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 131: "I'm building a TF P-40 and recently saw your comparison to other TF .60 kits. I saw the ground handling was a bit tricky as well as the take off in general. I was planning on including the stock fixed landing gear instead of retracts. The TF instructions say that the fixed gear is shortened from scale to improve ground handling. How do you think this will affect the takeoff? Easier with the fixed gear? I like the P-40, but maybe should have gotten the P-47 instead since they fly so much easier. Thanks, Jim"

Jack: "Hi Jim, The TF P-40 is the most difficult plane to fly in the gold edition series and the difficulties that are normally experienced deal with take-off and landing. In the air it flies beautifully but it’s often a challenge getting it there and often a challenge getting it settled back on the ground. The gear stance is very narrow which makes ground handling tricky. It drags a wing if you try any aggressive turning and will ground loop very easily when takeoff power is applied. I have not built or flown a TF P-40 with fixed gear but my thoughts are that if the fixed gear is shorter you may have a real tendency for the model to nose over. Typically you want the axle that your main wheel is mounted on even with the leading edge of the wing directly above the wheel. Short gear would move the axle back behind the leading edge and that may tend to make the model nose over especially after landing.

I think that as long as you anticipate the left yaw the model will produce as you start to add power and you are already responding with right rudder that you will find it just takes a bit of practice and you will have the model tracking straight down the runway. I don’t know if you built the scale flaps but they help considerably in the landing scenario because they add a lot of low speed stability and slow the landing speed way down. You need to fly the plane right to contact with the ground and learn to control your decent to the touchdown point of the landing with the throttle instead of the elevator. With flaps down the power management makes things work well as you set up to land. You will want a steeper approach angle than you would with a model that does not have flaps and as you reduce the throttle the flaps become big speed brakes and the model will sink rather quickly. Adding a little power lessens the steep approach and slows the decent down with little gain in airspeed. Flare the model about a foot off the ground and let the main gear touch down first. As soon as the model is rolling on the main gear you will see the tail start to settle and you want to avoid up elevator here. Let the tail wheel settle and keep the model going straight until the ground speed is low enough to safely turn it. With a little respect for it’s flight characteristics I think you can learn to fly this model and really start to enjoy it. Think the landings and the takeoffs through before you fly and once you get it down practice it and you will see your flight skills really take a giant step forward. Good luck with you P-40 Jim. Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 132: "Hi Jack, I'm currently building the Top Flight P-47 Gold Kit. Could you give you're opinion regarding my choice of engines? The model will be glassed (or carbon fiber tissue),and I've narrowed it down between a YS 110FZ and YS 140FZ. The 140 has the same block dimensions as the discontinued 120. I lack warbird flight experience and my other consideration is prop diameter (ground clearance). I will probably use the 3 1/2" Wheels. I have century jet retracts. Also I am concerned about scale replication (airspeed,rpm,etc.). Also, I want to fit the century jet retracts with spring struts for the first few landings at least. I figure I will have to fabricate them myself unless you know of spring assembies that will fit into the century jet strut receiver. Thanks Jack. "

Jack: "Hi Gil. First off let me say that the Top Flight P-47 Gold Addition kit is the best flying model in that kit line up so you have made a great choice. I think the YS 140 is too much engine for this model and the YS 110 would be a perfect match. All of the YS family of engines are at the top end of the performance category in the Four Stroke engine choices. They are very smooth running and very reliable with the regulated pumps that keep fuel flowing very steadily. Great power and reliability are a winning combination. The larger Wheels will make the plane easier to take off and land and the secret is making sure that the axle on the retract is even with the leading edge of the wing just above the wheel. The model will tend to nose over especially if you fly off of a grass field if you don’t do that. Robart makes a good selection of oleo struts that are high quality but I do knot know the diameter of the Century Jet strut socket but I do think Robart will have a strut that will work for you. A call to them should get the information you are looking for.

The YS 110 will fly this model above scale airspeed but that is easily taken care of with the throttle. Having that extra power can really help at times but I want to warn you that Warbirds are energy airplanes and you need to take advantage of flight energy to fly them well. Don’t even attempt to jerk them off of the ground on takeoff but rather let them run on the main gear until you have reached sufficient speed to safely fly the model. A good bit of right rudder will be required to keep this model tacking straight down the runway. In the air it is the nicest flying model out there. It has a super wing and it will track like it’s on rails. Take the time to get the balance on this model exactly right and it will reward you with some stellar flight performance. I hope you built the model with flaps. They are extremely effective in the landing configuration and will slow the model considerable yet keep low speed stability. When you drop your flaps make sure you are ready to add power to keep the model flying. Flaps are big speed brakes and the model will slow down quickly. They take a little to get use to but once you get the flaps mastered you will have gone a long way toward having your new P-47 around for a long time. Good luck with your Thunderbolt Gil. " Jack Devine

Back To List

Question 133: "hi jack. thank you for that quick answer about tht hanagr 9 p-40. i wanted to know if it is not a problem that this arf is not comming with flaps.i saw that you mentioned that is is a difficult bird to handle on ground.....and for a second warbird(i have a top flite texan with flaps and they sure did help..). maybe the super tiger 90 is a bit to heavy for that light model and can cause stalls on landing without the stability of a flap landing? thanks again erez"

Jack: "Hi Erez, I have always preferred to build my Warbirds with flaps. They just make landing so much easier. With the Hanger 9 P-40 I think you will be ok because it has a fairly light wing loading. I would not be concerned about the weight of the Super Tiger .90 as it weighs exactly the same weight as the Super Tiger .75 and has a lot more power. If you have flown the Top Flight Texan you already know what narrow landing gear does during takeoff and landing. I’m happy to hear that you built your Texan with flaps. They are very effective on that model and make landing much easier. I would go with the Super Tiger .90 and make sure your balance is right on the money. I think with a good lateral and longitudinal balance you will not have any problems flying the Hanger 9 P-40 just the way it came from the factory.. Your other option would be to build flaps into the wing. Split flaps are not difficult to build and are usually within the abilities of the average modeler. The bottom of the wing is covered with a single gray colored covering material and you would only open the wing through the bottom skin. This would add the flaps and give you more flight control in the landing configuration.

There are several of these models that fly at my home field regularly and the guys that own them don’t seem to have any problem flying without flaps. Get the plane ready to fly and take it up for a couple of flights and feel it out. If it seems ok and will let you make a comfortable approach to landing I think you will have success with this model without modification. It is a light airplane and that is definitely in your favor. Two of them are powered with 1.20 four Stroke motors which are much heavier than the Super Tiger .90. You have some decisions to make but if you can fly the Top Flight Texan you can fly the Hanger 9 P-40. Good luck Erez." Jack Devine

Back To List

Question 134: "Why are the sizes of flight surfaces important? "

Jack: "Hi Heather, I’m not really sure where to go with this question or why it’s being asked but I’ll answer and see if it helps. I hope we are on the same page here! Different types of aircraft need different sizes of flight surfaces to achieve the balance necessary to produce flight capability and even more important in flight control. First we will talk about wings. Span, airfoil profile and surface area are major considerations. The wing needs to have enough surface area to create sufficient lift and it must be structurally sound enough to absorb the loads induced by flight. The airfoil profile which causes the air to flow across the wing in flight must be considered when designing a wing so it’s penetrating ability will produce enough lift yet not create an over bearing amount of drag.. Lift vs Drag has been a design challenge all the way back to the Wright brothers first aircraft. Compare a supersonic fighter to a DC-3 as an example. The fighter has an extremely thin airfoil and often the fuselage design creates lift too. The DC 3 has a very thick wing airfoil and a large span that produces a ton of lift but it does not have an extremely high speed capability because it also creates a substantial amount of drag. Power availability is also a big factor in considering the necessary size of a wing. WW II fighters were usually pretty high power to weight ratios and wing profiles were developed based on the availability of a lot of horsepower. As we have moved into the jet powered aircraft available power exceeds the total weight of most of these aircraft and the flight speeds they are capable of are almost mind boggling. The wing size is critical in any design because it is the source of the lift that makes an airplane fly.

Flight control surfaces would be the next consideration because they have a huge effect on controlling the aircraft in flight so their design has to be such that they induce the proper amount of trim or directional change without placing the aircraft in a dangerous stall situation. Flight control surfaces that are too big or have too much deflection cause very erratic flight and make the plane difficult to control and very difficult to promote smooth flight. Surfaces that are two small will require much higher amounts of deflection to induce the desired course/attitude changes and again an ugly stall can result and in the worst circumstances make an aircraft unrecoverable while it makes its way to its crash site. Achieving a balance where the right amount of surface deflection produces the right amount of change in flight attitude is a key design factor and one that all aircraft designers strive to achieve. I think you can get the importance of the right size flight surfaces if you consider all of these points. I hope this answers your question Heather and I will be happy to entertain other questions if you have them. Thanks for writing." Jack Devine

Back To List

Question 135: "Hi Jack, Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience. It makes our experiences more enjoyable when we can learn the correct way, instead of the hard way. I would like to ask you about aerodynamic pressure put on Corsair flaps and how it may effect flight characteristics. During construction, the plans for my Top Flight .60 locate the control horn on the inboard flap. Even with a tight fit between inboard, mid and outboard flaps, it seems that the outboard flap would flex under load. That would certainly effect the flight characteristics. If the control horn were moved to the mid flap, wouldn't that cut down on the amount of unwanted movement. As long as the movement is equal on both wings, it shouldn't be of much concern on a small aircraft. What about the 1/6 and 1/5 scale where there is more weight and pressure involved. Your thoughts. Ken."

Jack: "Hi Ken. You raise a very good question here with the single servo driving the inner flap. The design on the 60 size Top Flight Corsair is a solid design but in the three of those Corsairs that I have built I never used anything less than a 100 oz in servo to drive each side of the flaps. If you build them to get fifty degrees of deflection in the full down flap position they will endure some good wind resistance especially if they are deployed at high airspeeds. The linkage with the wire and the wedge shaped block will move the flaps together and hold them there in the lowered position provided you built them correctly and your hinges are properly anchored in the flaps section and in the trailing edge of the wing. They make such a difference in landing the Corsair but any flaps built incorrectly or with sloppy linkage is a crash looking for a place to happen. With a good servo and a short 4-40 linkage rod connecting the flap and the servo I don’t feel you will have any problems. I found this setup more than capable of getting the job done on all three that I have had. I still have one of them and I check the flaps after every flight but they are still solid and perform very well.

I drive both the inner and the outer flap sections on my big Corsair and slave the middle section. I still use the high output servos and with two on each side there is no problem with them either. I think you really miss something special flying a Corsair without flaps. It has to be one of the coolest looking Warbirds ever on final with all the flaps hanging down. They are also very effective in reducing airspeed and you need to anticipate that because it requires a different strategy on the throttle stick but the really do a great job of eliminating that terrible low speed tip stall that the Corsair has been branded with since it was first introduced. I will say that if you master the flaps and the rudder on your Corsair you will have a great airplane that will last you thru many seasons of flying. I hope I answered your question Kan and I wish you the best with your new bent wing bird!! Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 136: "Hello "Jack", My name is Jason, I own a Byron Mustang with the Q-42 & reduction unit as well as the one piece wing. I Bought the plane on RCU 1-1/2 years ago as a RTF, And aside from shipping damage, bad coil, leaking air cylinders, worn out servos,& broken prop shaft, oh and pickup tube inside of tank was hard as a rock and bent in permanet position at the top of the tank from being stored inverted. Well i managed to get the thing finished about 2 weeks ago, I replaced all servos with futaba 3010's & a 1/4 scale on the flaps this plane is stock, I mean 1 servo for ailerons, evelator, rudder I bought a futaba 6EXAS transmitter & SR 2200 MAH reciever battery, my question is do you think this battery is enough to be safe, or should i put two. I read where you use two in all your airplanes. I also heard that it is possible to put another battery & switch pluged into channel 7 on reciever as a back-up. Do i really need a 2nd battery, ? with only 6 servos, Is putting it on channel 7 really possible, and this will be 6 volt by the way. THANK YOU for your time Jack. I'm waiting on clearance from you."

Jack: "Hello Jason, Another one of my favorite subjects the Byron Mustang. First off this is a great airplane but it needs tons of TLC to stay flying safely. It’s a very high maintenance aircraft but one that will give you hours of enjoyment and absolutely take the show everywhere you care to fly it. It sounds like yours was a bit War Weary when you got it but it also sounds like you have given it a good going over and it will reward you for all the TLC. Power is marginal with the Quadra 42 but the plane will fly fine as long as you understand it’s limits. It is a total energy fighter and you need good airspeed entering every maneuver you want to try. That big four blade prop will haul it off the ground pretty easily but you want to let it run on the mains as long as possible. It will rotate on it’s own once you reach flying speed and keep your climb out under control. Don’t get too steep just let it gain some altitude and don’t try a turn until you have 50 or 60 feet of altitude. You will need to get use to it and take everything very slowly until you get the feel of it. For the first few flights I would not try anything that could lead to problems. Leave the rolls and loops until you are comfortable with the plane. The Quadra should be able to turn the big prop at about 3600 RPM which will put the motor speed at about 7200. You will love the looks of a low pass when you precede it by a shallow dive that lets you build up the airspeed. Use the same technique before you try any loops or rolls.

As far as the battery I run dual batteries in all of my big airplanes. I run six volt 3000 mah packs and the second battery on it’s own switch is the cheapest insurance you can buy. The odds at getting two full battery systems to fail at the same time is almost non existent. You keep good solid high voltage going to your servos and because the batteries are in parallel system voltage stays at 6 volts. I run everything on both batteries and then drop one battery and then the other one while I make sure everything stays operating smoothly. It’s cheap insurance and I would not even think about flying one of my planes without this set up. The back up battery does not improve the performance of the servos but you should not loose the electrics with this set up. Like I said it’s really cheap insurance.

I ran individual servos on my Ailerons because I thought that torque rod set up sucked. I also ran servos on both elevator halves. The ¼ scale servo will handle the rudder and the tail wheel with no problem. Standard servos will handle the throttle and the retract control valve too. I run the 10 second 180 degree ACE R/C servo on the flaps. Very nice slow steady deployment of the flaps and it accepts a 2 position flap switch so you can use half flaps if you have the right conditions. The slow servos are ¼ scale in size but have very slow transit times. I think Iron Bay still markets them. I used the same servo on my Retract control air valve so I could sequence the gear doors on the main gear and the tail wheel. It works beautifully and just blows people away when the see it operate the retracts.

I have had my Byron Mustang for almost twelve years and I have no intention of ever letting it go. It’s been a great airplane and has been flown over 400 times. I perform the maintenance regularly and stick to that routine every time I fly it. I look for it to be around for many more flying seasons. You can make it faster with direct prop drive and a two blade propeller but it will never look as cool as it does with the big four blade on the nose. Good luck with your Mustang Jason. Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 137: "Jack, Hope you are well! I read what you said about the prop drives for the Comp arf P-51.I am about to buy an Aerotech P-51 and I am in contact with Joe Boyd, and his const. speed scale 4 blade prop and drive.But do you know of anyone else who is making or any drives that are available for a 1/5th Mustang. As I will not put a 2 bladed prop on this model. So , I need to find a scale 4 bladed prop and a drive.!!!!!Any suggestions?? Joe is running his with a DA 50.Works well, and most importantly it remains completely within the cowl!! The 50 works well with the const.speed prop, making it = to about a 80cc. But without const.speed, then perhaps the new DA c.70 or 75??? when it comes out would be better providing it is a similar size and will fit in the cowl!! Anyway, not sure when you wrote that thread but any new developments since then??? It amazes me that in an age of turbines and even turbines with 5 stages of comp., and the amount of warbird lovers that no manufacturer/individual, has developed an engine that is small enough, like the DA50 that can spin a scale 4 bladed prop......or even better, a const.speed prop.(apart from Joe, who is almost there!!!Hats off to him!!!!!) Or even made available a drive unit. So Any help would be much appriciated!! Regards,Peter"

Jack: "Hello Peter, Nice to hear from you. Like you I have been very interested in Joe Boyde’s reduction unit and what I really like about Joe who is a full scale airline pilot is that he understands what he is trying to achieve and has spent countless hours changing and updating the design. When he releases it I’m sure he will make a ton of money on it as scale guys love planes with scale props on them. I have loved my Byron Mustang since the day I got it and I wouldn’t trade it for anything. It’s a very high maintenance system but there’s nothing like it in the air. That big old four blade prop just looks so cool. Everyone lands to watch you fly them so I know how set you are on making your new Mustang scale. Another reduction unit that is out there and built around the G-62 is from Mick Reeves in the UK. If you do a google search for Mick Reeves Scale Models you should find his website and the reduction unit is on the site. That unit is interesting as it mounts the motor upright and the reduction shaft fits the nose of a Mustang perfectly. It can spin a pretty healthy prop and is gimler toothed belt driven so there is a better transition of power than was available with the Byron style V belts. It has a healthy lightweight frame and a g-62 is a very reliable motor so this one should work well too. That Aero Tech model is a beautiful Airplane. With a good reduction unit and a scale flying four blade prop it should be a real winner. Keep us posted on your progress Peter. It sounds like you have a plan!!! Jack Devine "

Back To List

Question 138: "Hello, I recently bought a Focke wulf at a flea market. And I am trying to figure out who makes it. The reason being that I need the cg and proper throws. As far as I can tell it looks like a PICA model. Would you agree? The wing span is 63" and it has a os max .60 installed. At first I thought it was a Top Flite kit till a pull up there plans on the web and seen that it was not he same plane, close though. The engine mounting is different.. I have inserted some picture of the plane, hopeful you can help me out or direct me to someone who can. Thanks in advance. Frank"

Jack: "Hi Frank, The kit you have of the Dora is a Pica Kit. I have that same model with an OS .90 in it and it was built with retracts and a servo operated canopy with a complete cockpit with pilot. The plane flies well with the .90 and it weighs just over 11 pounds ready to fly.. Pica used the standard hardwood beam motor mounts in all of their kits and though they are not very attractive they are very functional and solid. All pica planes build tail heavy so make sure you spend some time getting your CG dialed in. I’m not sure of the status of the Pica kit line right now. I know the company was purchased and the plan was to move production somewhere in South America. They had some really nice accessories and I liked their kits. I also have their 1/6th and 1/5th scale P-51s. I also have built and flown their .60 sized Spitfire which is a very nice flying airplane. I no longer own the Spitfire but it is still flying after many seasons.

I think you will like the Dora but as always with a plane that you have purchased assembled, double check everything before you decide to fly it. If the plane is built light I’m sure the .60 will be acceptable power but if it weighs over 11 pounds I don’t think the OS motor will get the job done. I’d recommend the .90 size motor as they fit in the same space and have a lot more power. The Super Tiger .90 is a great motor and very reasonably priced thru Tower Hobbies. I think you can get it on sale for about $120.00 That is a good price for that motor. The .90 on my Dora is mounted just like yours and the cylinder head just barely sticks up through the top of the cowl. OS .90 glow motors are hard to get but they are great motors too if you can afford the price. I wish you success with your new Folke Wulf . Good flying!!! Jack"

Back To List

Question 139: "Jack Do you know where I might pick up a Byron Original T-34c kit or flying plane?? Shaun"

Jack: "Hello Shaun, I was unaware that Byron ever offered a T-34c kit. I know they offered the T-33 Shooting Star and it is available but I don’t know about the T-34. Contact Iron Bay Model Company and see if they might have any information on that kit. They bought all the rights to the entire Byron kit line and they are slowly bringing them back to the market place. I have never seen one of the T-34c kits but the folks at Iron Bay should be able to help you. Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 140: "Hi, I have a Byron P-51 with the reduction drive but no engine. I would like to buy a new engine to use with the drive but am not sure what to get. Can you recommend an engine and source. I understand that I may have to modify or fabricate mounting plates but would like to stick with the reduction drive. Thanks very much."

Jack: "Hello Rhett, It’s really nice to hear from another Byron P-51 lover! I have enjoyed mine for almost 15 years and I wouldn’t trade it for any other plane. The reduction unit has never been a power house and the plane with the reduction unit does not out fly a direct drive equipped Mustang but man does it ever have a presence at the flying field. When people see that big pro ticking over as you taxi it on the ground it draws crowds. Everyone will land to watch you fly it. The original design was built around the Quadra 35 and the Quadra 42. The 35 is not the best choice of these two motors and has less power but some modelers have had success with it. I have no experience with the 35. Mine originally had the Quadra 42 and I flew it for years with that motor. Understanding that you need to use flight energy to effectively fly the plane with the 42 and not doing things in flight that jeopardized the safe flight envelope of the plane has kept mine alive and well for all of this time. I’d recommend you don’t try any performance maneuvers with it until you have flown it a few time and really got a handle on how it performs. I converted mine to the later optional Mustang 50 a few years ago and the added increase in power from this motor really did not yield a linear increase in performance. The prop blades that are marketed by Byron and now through Iron Bay are injection molded plastic and they are RPM limited. Spinning that big prop over 3500 RPM causes the blades to flatten out and you actually loose thrust. I can get almost 3700 RPM prop speed with the Mustang 50 but it puts the blades into a deflection that actually reduces the thrust. Level flight speed improved but when you start climbing and really loading the prop it didn’t show me any real mark of improvement in performance.

With all that said and with Iron Bay marketing what they say is an improved blade for the reduction system the extra power of a 50 cc engine would be my focus. If you have the original engine mount plates you can see that it is not too difficult to fabricate a pair of new ones. It’s just carefully measuring out the block mount holes and then drill the plates to align with those holes. Mack sure you keep the crankshaft and the upper shaft parallel and you should not have too much trouble. Rhett this system is worth spending some time on. The rewards are huge and after your first flight you will know you did the right thing in saving the reduction unit. If you need a go fast mustang build another one and keep this one in your hanger as a real four blade prop equipped Mustang.. The Fuji 50cc engine is the same motor that Byron marketed as the Mustang 50 and that motor is available. The Brison 50 or the Quadra 52 are two other motors worth considering. The Brison is a little power house and the Quadra’s have always been very reliable. Check on RC universe about the blades too. A guy here in the states and one in Europe were working on Carbon Fiber blades and they would open up a whole new experience with the reduction unit. If I can be of any other assistance don’t hesitate to email me back. I love talking Byron Mustangs!!!! Good luck with your P-51 Rhett! Let us know how it all turns out. Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 141: "Hi, I am another Byron P-51 owner (one piece wing). I am almost finished building it but only have the still new, original Q35. I have been looking for a new Q42 but haven't found one. Any suggestions on a currently available motor that will work with the reduction drive (some mounting modification is quite okay). I was considering the Fuji BT50. I bought a US41 a while back but sent it back because the quality was so poor. Thanks for any advice you may have. "

Jack: "Hello Rhett, I have never seen the Byron reduction unit perform well on the Quadra 35 so I think your choice to pursue other power is a wise one. The Fuji 50 is an updated version of the old Byron Mustang 50 and Byron offered a retro fit kit for the Mustang 50 for several years. The only difference in what you have and the conversion kit is the front and rear motor mount plates. There is a little difference in shape and the mount holes where the plates are bolted to the motor are very different compared to the Quadra plates. I’m note sure if the block/cylinder design changed on the Fuji 50 and if it hasn’t then the original Byron mounts for the Mustang 50 would work and the complexity of the conversion would be minimal. You surely will not regret flying this plane. It’s a show stopper and everywhere you take it guys will land their planes to watch it fly. Make sure you paint some nice yellow tips on the blades so you can see that big 24” prop circle while the plane is in flight. The flight envelope is a little limited and you need to gain airspeed and energy before you try any big over the top maneuvers. The extra power of the 50 helps but the real limiting factor is in the blades for the prop. They are speed limited at about 3650 RPM. I have not seen a new set of the Iron Bay blades to see if they are any better do I cannot comment on the new blade performance. A carbon fiber blade would make this plane awesome. The 50cc conversion cal easily spin the prop at about 3800 but it actually looses thrust as the blades flatten out above 3650.RPM.

Inspect everything after every flight and make sure you use the nylock type nuts on all of the mounting hardware that requires nuts on the bolts. Make sure your belts are OK after every flight too. Good maintenance will keep this plane flying for many years. Good luck Rhett! Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 142: "Hello Jack, I flew warbirds years ago and after a 20 year absence, I have returned to the sport/hobby. I have been flying again for over a year all the while getting my flying skills back to where I am comfortable (as much as possible) with again flying heavy warbirds. I have flown all the popular variants (in the good ole days) but all were 1/6-1/8 scale. Since returning I have purchased two planes (I am building a BT 83" Spit). One is a 1/6 scale Pica Spit that I have been flying successfully and a Midwest AT-6 which I am writing about. The AT-6 is pulled by a new ST2300, has retracts, on-board glow but no flaps and weights 15 lbs rtf. Can you give advise on flying this plane? Thanks in advance"

Jack: "Hi Mike, It's always nice to see a fellow modeler/pilot return to the hobby. Being a Warbird guy is icing on the cake!! I'm sure you will find your Brian Taylor Spitfire to be a quality model and I know you will enjoy flying that plane. I have owned two of the Pica Spitfires, One a 1/6th
scale and I still have the 1/5th scale model. The only thing I found with all of the Pica kits is that they build very tail heavy if you are not very
careful and conscious of this problem during the build. I hate to add non functional weight to any airplane and I had to add almost two pounds of lead to my big Spitfire to get the C/G right and this is one plane you want to have balanced right on the money.

The Midwest AT-6 is a very solid model and it will fly well too. Like all AT6 models the flight characteristics are very predictable and straight
forward. A great airplane for an advanced trainer. Landing the AT^ however presents several problems that you just need to be aware of so you know how to deal with them. Speed is an issue without flaps. Landing speeds will be higher but you will maintain a bit more stability because of the increased airspeed. Next issue is the NARROW landing gear stance. It also uses a very stubby strut and it is very easy to get this model into a proposing and steadily increasing bouncing landing situation and it usually ends with a low altitude stall that lets the model hit hard and
usually ends up flipping over and taking the top off of the Vertical stab/Rudder assembly. Cross wind landings can be difficult too because of
the narrow gear and they usually end in a ground loop that scrapes the heck out of a wing tip.

With all of that said let's talk about some solutions, First as you approach touchdown, allow your plane to enter ground effect and let it bleed
off the airspeed before you let the wheels touch the runway. The lower the airspeed the less chance of the ugly bounce. Make sure your motor has a good reliable low idle and if you miss an approach bring your power up slowly and fly straight out into the pattern until a safe flying airspeed
is built up and then and only then start your first departure turn. If the bouncing starts add power slowly and go around and set things up again.

Once the mains touch down let the model run on the main gear and continue to drop speed. DO NOT force the tail down because it leads to a likely bounce. With the Texan they get continually worse and that is really hard on the retracts too. Manage the throttle and set it down easily on the mains and as the speed drops off the tail will settle on its own. Steer with the rudder during landing and use the ailerons only to keep the wing level. With a little practice you will be able to really enjoy this model because like I said earlier they fly beautifully. This plane will make you a better pilot because it forces landing discipline. Once you master the AT6 you will be able to handle any Warbird out there. Good luck Mike! Jack Devine "

Back To List

Question 143: "Hey Jack I need some advice. I have been flying models for 15 years. My passion is warbirds but I must admit they really intimidate me and make me nervous. I have flown a Top Flite .60 size Mustang with retracts and flaps, Hangar 9 PT-19 and other sport tail draggers. I am currently flying a Top Flite AT-6 with flaps and retracts and a Great Planes PT-19. I have also flown(no landings or takeoffs, just flown in the pattern) my buddies Byron Corsair. I want to move up to giant scale warbirds. I just bought a brand new Yellow Aircraft P-47 that I planned on using as my first giant scale warbird. The only problem is I am a slow builder and I am not sure if I will be able to get it ready to fly for the next flying season here is New England. About 2 years ago I bought a Top Flite Giant Scale Corsair about 90% built. So here is my question. Do you think I could handle the Top Flite Giant Scale Corsair or should I save it until after I fly the Yellow Aircraft P-47? Thanks for your help. Tony Gagliardi Jr."

Jack: "Hello Tony, Nice to hear from you. From what you have related here relevant to your flying experience I don’t think you would have any problem with the Giant Scale Top Flite Corsair. Like all Corsairs the Top Flight model needs to be flown like any energy fighter and if you are flying the Top Flight AT6 you are already aware of the flight characteristics of an energy type airplane. You have to maintain good airspeed and on takeoffs especially be very aware of the Corsairs ability to jump into the air without sufficient airspeed to maintain flight. I learned this the hard way and destroyed a beautiful Top Flight .60 size Corsair on it’s maiden flight. I don’t know if you have read the article that I wrote on RCWarbirds about this very subject. If you look in the Techniques section you will find it and I think it has helped more than a few new pilots avoid the disaster I had. One good point is that the larger Corsairs fly much better than the smaller ones do. Stay within the flight rules for the Corsair and you will get a ton of enjoyment out of that model and bring it home at the end of the day in great shape. Make sure you build the flaps because they will dramatically improve slow flight stability on approaches and also extend the life of your landing gear.

Your Yellow P-47 is a very nice airplane and in my opinion the P-47 is the best flying Warbird out there. It has plenty of wing and a unique stability in flight that is unmatched by any other fighter I have ever flown. There are some issues with aileron flutter on that model and I’d recommend you do a good search and discover the ways other pilots that have built this plane dealt with this problem. High speed flutter can tear a wing/airplane to pieces so you need to know what it is and how you can combat the problem. There are several fixes out there that work very well and they turn this airplane into a fairly docile plane to fly. I don’t think you should have any problem with the Yellow P-47 either. Good luck Tony - Jack Devine"

Back To List

Question 144: "Hello Jack, I am presently finishing up a yellow aircraft spitfire powered by an evolution 45 (5.2 hp) 22x10 prop with robart retracts and I am wondering if you can give me any insight on how this model performs. What are your experiences to right thrust and down thrust on this model? The premounted firewall has both of these inputs and I am wondering if this will aid in its flight characteristics, or should I shim it out? Any advise will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Al"

Jack: "Hi Sam, The Pica Spitfire is a great flying airplane and landing it is pretty straight forward once you get a routine worked out. I firmly believe a routine is essential and it allows you to set up for landings with a program that allows you to prepare the airplane in the same manner each time you make an approach. I think the routine should always remain the same and here is what I recommend. First call you landing on the last circuit to let everyone on the flight line know that you intend to land your plane and give other pilots time to clear the runway and open the approach pattern. As you make your turn out onto the down wind pass lower the landing gear and do a good visual check to insure the gear is down as the plane passes pattern center. I fly a military landing approach and fly the plane around the circuit with the gear down so I get a good close up visual of the landing gear and then turn 90 degrees out at the runway center and 90 more degrees onto the down wind side of the pattern. Maintain altitude and about ½ throttle and lower the flaps. The plane will start loosing airspeed quickly so make sure you maintain enough throttle to maintain airspeed. Turn onto the base leg and begin your decent. Turn onto final and maintain the decent to the runway managing the decent with the throttle. Steer with the rudder not the ailerons. Use the ailerons to keep the wings level but steer with the rudder. Control the decent rate with the throttle. If you are a little too steep just add a little power and if you are not steep enough reduce the power and let the flaps go to work for you. Your decent rate should be consistent and it takes a little practice to get there. You should be picking your touchdown spot on the runway and flying the plane to that spot. Long low approaches with a heavy warbird are very dangerous. I have seen way to many crashes because the pilot lost safe airspeed and the plane fell out of the sky in an ugly stall. It’s very hard to judge airspeed on a long slow and low approach. Watch guys who try to land that way and look at how bumpy the approaches to touchdown are. It just doesn’t work and it eats up a lot of nice airplanes.

The approach should be 30 to 40 degrees above the horizon with a straight line to your chosen touchdown point. As you cross the end of the runway you should be about five feet above the runway and it’s time to slowly start to flair for the landing. Chop the throttle to idle as you cross the threshold of the runway and ground effect will start to come in. Let the flaps do their job again in slowing the plane down and let the model settle in on the main gear. Let the tail come down on it’s own!! Do not force the tail down with up elevator. Again keep steering with the rudder and as the tail settles the tail wheel will help with directional control. If you decide you are going to have a missed approach or you are unhappy with the approach setup add power SLOWLY and fly straight out until you have sufficient airspeed to safely turn. Take a few deep breaths and start the setup for landing all over again. You can make another circuit with the gear and flaps down. That may help you settle down not having to go through all of that again and just concentrate on setting up the next approach. Remember that with the flaps down you will need more power to keep up a safe airspeed.

It’s all about practicing a routine Sam. You should be doing the same setup routine with the gear pass and the flap deployment on every landing. Always make sure you are safe on fuel and have enough onboard to make another circuit or two if you have to. A dead stick warbird is a beast to fly and all of the odds are against you for a safe landing. Don’t stretch the fuel situation. I hope this all helps a bit. It’s all about developing a landing routine. Get the routine down and the comfort level of landing will get very high very quickly. All of the full scale pilots do it and modelers need to develop it as well. Good luck with your Spitfire!! Jack"

Back To List