As the title suggests I waste nothing. If a plan is damage beyond repair I consider it an obligation to salvage what ever is reusable. including planes owned by other pilots. With their permission of coarse. This makes assembling many planes possible and affordable. It has the added bonus of always having spare parts for some of my more creative endeavors.
The plane pictured to the right is one such effort.
A friend of mine,
Brian, at one time owned a
Hangar 9 F22 Raptor. He had crashed and fixed it on multiple occasions and had even purchased a second F22 to use as parts. After a rather nasty nose in landing he felt damage exceeded his abilities and desire to repair. Brian and I worked out a trade for the remains of his Raptor in exchange for a Great Planes DC 3 I no longer needed. This is what I received. The remains of what looked like a fuselage, Two sets of wings, mostly intact. Two sets of vertical and horizontal stabilizers and an assortments of scrap balsa. Wow such a deal.
Brian, at one time owned a Hangar 9 F22 Raptor. He had crashed and fixed it on multiple occasions and had even purchased a second F22 to use as parts. After a rather nasty nose in landing he felt damage exceeded his abilities and desire to repair. Brian and I worked out a trade for the remains of his Raptor in exchange for a Great Planes DC 3 I no longer needed. This is what I received. The remains of what looked like a fuselage, Two sets of wings, mostly intact. Two sets of vertical and horizontal stabilizers and an assortments of scrap balsa. Wow such a deal.
The result of my repair efforts are reflected above. I managed to get the F22 back in flying condition and I'm very happy with the results. Now keep in mind that the is an ARF and no plans exited at the time of repair. I didn't receive the build manual so this repair required some Internet hopping to locate pictures and then a lot of guess work. For those unfamiliar with this model a couple of things to note. Hangar 9 built this as a PTS version. (progressive trainer system). The intent was to create a plane most anyone with under wing experience could fly. They succeeded in thier effort. The model is very stable and by that I am mean a little to stable. Making it rather ho hum in flight. Changing the recommended C of G location a little farther back from the leading edge will differently improve performance and response. Be careful with moving to fare back or you may have your hands full. The only true down side to this model is the material used for the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Hangar 9 chose to use solid hardwood for both these surfaces. This added a significant amount of weight toward the rear and in many instances will require nose weight to in order to balance this model. Especially if you decide to do an e-conversion. The battery and ESC will need to be as far forward as possible and you may still have to add some lead weights to the front of the air plane to obtain the correct C of G. Prop clearance can also be an obstacle. The length of the factory main and nose struts only allows for a 12' prop. Not a real problem for glow equipped models but a true limiting factor should you choose to use an electric set up in your model. I installed a 46 size out runner motor and found a 13/8 prop offered excellent performance with a safe range of AMP draw. Longer landing gear struts were used in my design allowing for up to a 14" prop to be installed. The larger prop provides better take speeds and improved torque in the event of an aborted landing.
I have flown this model many times and have never had to do any significant repairs. The question became, what do I need a set of spare wings and rear flight surfaces for? The answer is this new plane pictured above and below. I won't bore you with the build details. Instead I'll share the high lights and improvements that resulted in one of the best flying planes I own.
As you can see from the photos. The fuse extends considerably farther forward from the leading edge of the wing. This positioned the motor father forward and eliminating the need for any additional weight to obtain proper C of G. The only parts used from Hangar 9's F22 were the wings. All the rest of the plane was scratch built from a set of plans I drawn up in just a few hours. The advantage in doing this was a much lighter finished airframe. Almost 1 1/2 pounds lighter than the Hangar 9 version. Since all my planes are designed for electric application, I can use considerably less plywood during the build process. Electric powered systems create much less vibration eliminating the need for heavy plywood materials. Strength is in the design not just the materials used
As you can see from the photos. The fuse extends considerably farther forward from the leading edge of the wing. This positioned the motor father forward and eliminating the need for any additional weight to obtain proper C of G. The only parts used from Hangar 9's F22 were the wings. All the rest of the plane was scratch built from a set of plans I drawn up in just a few hours. The advantage in doing this was a much lighter finished airframe. Almost 1 1/2 pounds lighter than the Hangar 9 version. Since all my planes are designed for electric application, I can use considerably less plywood during the build process. Electric powered systems create much less vibration eliminating the need for heavy plywood materials. Strength is in the design not just the materials used
"Waste not want not"
I recycle any usable old parts that come my way.
The main landing gear on the plane are off a 40 size
Dehavilland Beaver that a friend no longer wanted.
The struts are 2 piece aluminum with fiberglass skirts. Originally red in color, I applied a little blue
Hangar 9 covering for the proper
color match. They actually look very jet like and
helped with to obtain the length needed for prop
clearance.
The Mustang salvage/ scratch build model.
One of the first planes I purchased when I started flying was a Hangar 9 P 51 mustang PTS. I love the looks of the Mustang and had heard great things about this plane flight characteristics. I wouldn't recommend this as a trainer if your new to flying RC planes, but it makes an excellent first under wing model. The only draw back is the ground handling. Even in light cross winds the tendency to weather vain is significant and requires quite a bit of rudder imputes to maintain a straight take off attitude. This characteristic is not uncommon with tail dragger aircraft but does seem more pronounced with this model. I have a 60 size Hangar 9 Mustang the seems almost immune weather veining. It tracks straight and true even with 5-10 mile per hour cross winds.
After comparing both side by side two things really stood out. The landing gear on the 40 size PTS mustang are raked far forward of the leading edge of the wing. This is a design feetcher of the PTS to reduce nose over tendencies on take off and landings. The problem with this main gear position: It creates a bounce effect on landings even during a soft touch down. Propelling your plane skyward again. Don't panic and please don't power up and try to go around. This will most likely induce a stall as power up and induce elevator. The best solution is to simply flare the plane gently and let it settle back down. If your C of G is correct this is no problem. The second thing that was evident was the rather large size of the vertical stabilizer on the PTS model as compared to the 60 size model. This large surface has the advantage of less yaw in flight and responsive rudder imputes. The disadvantage is the P factor having greater influence over the direction of the plane on the ground. Coupled with cross winds this can make for difficult take offs. The solution to both of this issues are rather easy but rather time consuming depending on your skill level. For the landing gear just bend the main gear struts so that the wheels protrude 1-1 1/2 inches forward of the leading edge of the wing. Make sure both are at the same angle. This will still keep the plane from nosing over while significantly reducing landing bounce. Your plane will immediately tracked better on take offs and landing. The second solution was not so easy. It requires the creation of an entirely new fuselage. You could modify the one you have but if unsuccessful you may end up with out a flyable model. Not the best out come.
As mentioned previously I save everything from any plane I can get my hands on. The Mustang was no exception. The 40 size Mustang PTS that I currently fly is the second one I've owned. The remains of my first Mustang were used for this new model. Fortunately I had a perfect set of wings and rear flight surfaces to work with. I traced the fuse from my second Mustang to create a set of working plans. This gave me the exact size and width of the new fuse. I wanted this new fuselage to be a little closer to a scale Mustang so I made it slightly radial.and not just flat on the sides. For those not aware of it, the mustang originally was designed as a razor back. With the advent of new technology it was fitted with the bubble canopy must of us are familiar with. While this improved visibility and egress in and out of the plane, pilots complained of tail wagging and adverse yaw associated with the modification. North Americans solution was to enlarge and or extend the tail to provide additional flight surface. Hence the design we see most commonly today with the Mustang D. My solution was to go back to the razor back configuration. The hope was to reduce the P factor on this air frame. It worked tremendously and I now have a 40 size Mustang Razor back the ground handle extremely well and corners on rails. I strongly recommend this to any one with the building skills needed to complete this modification/ build. It won't hurt if you also have the spare parts laying around. Because I fly all electrics I was able to build the entire fuse using minimal plywood. The result was an airframe almost a pound lighter than the original. This really improved take off lengths and made for very light landings. I don't even need or use the flaps any more. I just set up for the approach and glide in.
The main landing gear on the plane are off a 40 size
Dehavilland Beaver that a friend no longer wanted.
The struts are 2 piece aluminum with fiberglass skirts. Originally red in color, I applied a little blue
Hangar 9 covering for the proper
color match. They actually look very jet like and
helped with to obtain the length needed for prop
clearance.
As with all my planes. A hatch is a requirement for ease of access to the battery and electronics. It makes things so much simpler than removing wings or other components to charge batteries or make mechanical adjustments. Doing this during the design faze is considerably easier
than a retro modification after the plane is completed.
The Mustang salvage/ scratch build model.
One of the first planes I purchased when I started flying was a Hangar 9 P 51 mustang PTS. I love the looks of the Mustang and had heard great things about this plane flight characteristics. I wouldn't recommend this as a trainer if your new to flying RC planes, but it makes an excellent first under wing model. The only draw back is the ground handling. Even in light cross winds the tendency to weather vain is significant and requires quite a bit of rudder imputes to maintain a straight take off attitude. This characteristic is not uncommon with tail dragger aircraft but does seem more pronounced with this model. I have a 60 size Hangar 9 Mustang the seems almost immune weather veining. It tracks straight and true even with 5-10 mile per hour cross winds.
After comparing both side by side two things really stood out. The landing gear on the 40 size PTS mustang are raked far forward of the leading edge of the wing. This is a design feetcher of the PTS to reduce nose over tendencies on take off and landings. The problem with this main gear position: It creates a bounce effect on landings even during a soft touch down. Propelling your plane skyward again. Don't panic and please don't power up and try to go around. This will most likely induce a stall as power up and induce elevator. The best solution is to simply flare the plane gently and let it settle back down. If your C of G is correct this is no problem. The second thing that was evident was the rather large size of the vertical stabilizer on the PTS model as compared to the 60 size model. This large surface has the advantage of less yaw in flight and responsive rudder imputes. The disadvantage is the P factor having greater influence over the direction of the plane on the ground. Coupled with cross winds this can make for difficult take offs. The solution to both of this issues are rather easy but rather time consuming depending on your skill level. For the landing gear just bend the main gear struts so that the wheels protrude 1-1 1/2 inches forward of the leading edge of the wing. Make sure both are at the same angle. This will still keep the plane from nosing over while significantly reducing landing bounce. Your plane will immediately tracked better on take offs and landing. The second solution was not so easy. It requires the creation of an entirely new fuselage. You could modify the one you have but if unsuccessful you may end up with out a flyable model. Not the best out come.
 |
| Hangar 9 Mustang D PTS |
No comments:
Post a Comment