SrTelemaster150

Usually model aircraft have dihedrel increased over what would be scale for increased stability. It puzzles me as to why TF would reduce dihedrel.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Dihedral reduces lift, induces problems with yaw, reduces aileron responses, etc. It may look more scale but reduces overall performance.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Not so true. Dihedral induces stability which was necessary for a gun platform. Warbirds are not pattern planes nor should they be expected to fly like one. If you want a straight wing plane with super performance fly any one of the 3D planes.

Tommy_Gun

The small variation from accurate dihedral to what Top Flight turned out in this arf, would not cause any quality of handling issues in a plane of this type. It's not a pattern or 3D plane.
EDIT,
Dang Bobh, your on the same channel Im tuned to

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Tommy,
Merry Christmas!!
Look forward to seeing you at the field this year.
FYI we do have a flying day on Dec 30. I'm not sure about the weather yet.
We shall see.
BobH.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Wasn't debating the issue about dihedral, just pointing out what is does to a model airplane. Top Flite has always been about a model's flyability, not scale fidelity.

SWORDSN

My Feedback: (13)

And they sure fly well! Just my experience.

Hot Rod Todd

My Feedback: (1)

The Sierra gear will hold up, even at the wrong dihedral. The wheels have a lot of strain on them though. You'll need wheels with good bearings, or they will not hold up due to the the angle caused by the incorrect dihedral.

If it was me, I'd correct the dihedral when I install Sierra gear. It looks much more scale, and from all accounts the flight performance is just as good. Ground handling will surely be better, and that's where you can always use some help on this plane.

deadstick79

who even makes a wheel with bearings?

ForcesR

The only RC wheels with bearings that I know of is "Air-Man Wheels".
https://www.airmanwheels.com/collect...ith-3-16-axles

Roger

Hot Rod Todd

My Feedback: (1)

I got some 1/4 internal dimension bearings and inserted them into the wheels I had. Other than that, you almost have to use aluminum wheels that have good brass bushings or bearings. Regular plastic wheels will not hold up under the side loads that the wheel angle causes when you use Sierra gear with the incorrect dihedral. I used some needle bearings that look like this. They are not as large OD as standard ball bearings.

deadstick79

Hey Tommy,
Do you think that the fg60 r3 will haul this plane around here in the Rockies at 5500 to 7300 ft elevation?
Thanx
Dan

Tommy_Gun

While I'm sure it would fly the plane at that elevation. I'm also sure it would not be as good in performance as it is at seal level. Especially on a high temperature day that would push your density altitude WAY above 12000' in a hearbeat.
I'd suggest at least the FG90R3 in your case.

deadstick79

U da Man Tommy! Thanks, that was the best explanation I ever dreamed of ! I only assumed that my Sieras would weigh way more than the Robarts "probably requiring the "90" thanx again!
Dan

Tommy_Gun

Just remember to fly it on the wing and not the engine.
Use LIFT and airspeed, not brute force to make it go where you want.
Remember that the thin air not only robs your engine of power, but lift from your wings.
Good luck

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Good advice at all altitudes.

Katniss

I have no doubt the fg60 would fly this fw190 easily even at our 5500 ft altitude.

Tommy_Gun

As I said, the FG60R3 will likely "fly" the 190 just fine in the rarified air above 5000'.
But as to how much power it will have to allow you to enjoy the aerobatics type flying I was doing at sea level, well, I'd rather go up in size to the FG90R3. Especially if the days get hot and muggy.
Thinner air kills power and lift.
There is a reason why they put forced induction on full scale aircraft piston engines. Since our selection of engines with forced induction, turbo or supercharging are limited for models, just increase the displacement.

Katniss

I understand what you're saying.
Honesty though, since I fly here at altitude(5300'), I can relay this...
I had an 89" Spitfire flying on a turnigy 50cc Gasser. It flew exceptionally well on a 20x10 prop. That turnigy 50cc is not nearly as powerful as a DLE or DA of same displacement.
The spitfire weighed 27.5 pounds.

I can't imagine an fg60 is going to have a problem here. If it can swing a 22x10 @ 6500 .....thats the same rpms I was seeing the turnigy motor swinging a smaller 20x10 on a similar size and weight plane.

Will it perform here the same as at sea level? No... there will be a difference yes, but not that great of one.
An fg90 would sure be a great motor for the 190 here for sure, but the fg60 will perform quite well also.
Personal choice of the builder... Having options is a great thing.

SWORDSN

My Feedback: (13)

I fly the FG60/FW190 combo at about 800ft of elevation and it performs well,not as fast as 55cc two strokes, but well.

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

Are you sure the balance point is one and a half inch behind the recommended 5 &1/2 inch from the front wing former . I would like to take some lead out to make the plane lighter .

Tommy_Gun

Yes, I am sure.
It flies much better, balanced as I have it as compared to the suggested point from the instructions.
Do NOT go aft of that point as I have no experience with anything other that what I've stated in this thread.

Lifer

My Feedback: (1)

Tommy Gun,

Do you know the chord of the wing at the root? I'd like to calculate what percentage back from the leading edge. My normal, go-to balance point is 28 to 32 percent of the chord.

masteromodels

My Feedback: (11)

I will try 1 inch first to see how it works out . Thanks a lot for your info.

Tommy_Gun

I don't have the dimensions here with me at work.
It sounds like you and I are on the same track.
I find the mean aerodynamic chord and then go back 28% to 33% depending on the plane.