Model Tech P-51 .60
11-25-2002, 01:51 AM
#1
Model Tech P-51 .60
Ok, so what scale is this bird supposed to be (1/6, 1/7)? I need to get markings and pilot bust for is as it didn't come with the package I bought. I'm waiting for my OS .91 Surpass II for this bird. Should I reinforce the engine mounting brackets?
Another other hints/tips?
Thanks guys!!
Another other hints/tips?
Thanks guys!!
11-25-2002, 01:55 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles,
CA
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Model Tech P-51 .60
I thoughtn the Model Tech 'stang was a 40-46 size?
Anyway, I've just flown mine for the first time (with a Saito 72 in it) and it's a grear flyer!
One building point .. the ailerons tend to bind, so be very careful when installing them.
Great plane that flies fast and is very easy to land.
David C.
Anyway, I've just flown mine for the first time (with a Saito 72 in it) and it's a grear flyer!
One building point .. the ailerons tend to bind, so be very careful when installing them.
Great plane that flies fast and is very easy to land.
David C.
11-25-2002, 02:09 AM
#3
.60 Size
Yes, David your right, the latest MT P-51 is a .40 size, but MT used to make (about 2-3 years ago?) a .60 size ARC which I just got off RCO. Unfortunately, the manual does not state size or all that good stuff. Anyone have some thoughts?
11-27-2002, 11:24 PM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nassau,
NY
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Model Tech P-51 .60
The engine mounts on the 60 size were very weak. 2 wood beams attached to a 1/8 nose ring, a 1/8 "firewall" and another 1/8 bulkhead. The vibration shook them all loose in 3 flights. When I saw what happened, I wondered how I missed spotting the problem before I ever flew it. Anyway, I filled in the spaces between the beams and the fuselage sides with pieces of hardwood that I custom-shaped to fit and also added a hardwood piece between the beams and against the firewall behind the engine. Then I drilled and dowel-pegged them at 3 places on each side including that crosspiece and 2 thru the nose ring.
That did the job.
The scale is almost identical to the Top Flight Gold Edition P51. In fact, I used the TF "B" conversion kit to modify the Model Tech to a P51B. If you like it as a "D", the Top Flight canopy is much better scale outline and also sturdier thicker plastic. The one from Model Tech is thin and flimsy and all wrong in shape basides.
The vertical tail is too small and incorrect in shape too. I modified mine adding about 3/4" to the bottom and a tapering piece to the TE of the rudder to correct the taper angle. Had to make a new tip too.
I also found the fuselage was one & a half inches too short behind the wing but I found a clever way to modify that. The mods for scale outline were actually not very hard and it was fun and satisfying to improve the appearance. I sent a pic to Frank Tiano and he published it in the March 2002 RC Report magazine, so if you have access to that issue, you can see how it came out.
Mine was 10 lbs 6 oz on a ST 90. All my mods notwithstanding, the Model Tech was a wonderful flyer.
I'm not telling you to do all the stuff I did; I'm just passing it along FWIW for anyone interested in scale outline, but do beef up the engine mounts at least.
Oh, yeah, the balance point in the instruction booklet was incorrect - way too far forward. Some kits (not mine) had a correction sheet. I flew mine at 27% MAC and later even added weight to the tail and still could not induce a snap, so it was safe back there.
Best of luck with yours.
Tom
That did the job.
The scale is almost identical to the Top Flight Gold Edition P51. In fact, I used the TF "B" conversion kit to modify the Model Tech to a P51B. If you like it as a "D", the Top Flight canopy is much better scale outline and also sturdier thicker plastic. The one from Model Tech is thin and flimsy and all wrong in shape basides.
The vertical tail is too small and incorrect in shape too. I modified mine adding about 3/4" to the bottom and a tapering piece to the TE of the rudder to correct the taper angle. Had to make a new tip too.
I also found the fuselage was one & a half inches too short behind the wing but I found a clever way to modify that. The mods for scale outline were actually not very hard and it was fun and satisfying to improve the appearance. I sent a pic to Frank Tiano and he published it in the March 2002 RC Report magazine, so if you have access to that issue, you can see how it came out.
Mine was 10 lbs 6 oz on a ST 90. All my mods notwithstanding, the Model Tech was a wonderful flyer.
I'm not telling you to do all the stuff I did; I'm just passing it along FWIW for anyone interested in scale outline, but do beef up the engine mounts at least.
Oh, yeah, the balance point in the instruction booklet was incorrect - way too far forward. Some kits (not mine) had a correction sheet. I flew mine at 27% MAC and later even added weight to the tail and still could not induce a snap, so it was safe back there.
Best of luck with yours.
Tom
11-27-2002, 11:32 PM
#6
My Feedback: (327)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: El Cajon,
CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MT Mustang
My instructions with this plane say DO NOT fly with a 4 stroke, the mount is not designed (stock) for it. If you do the beef-up and extend the nose to make room for the 4 stroke carb as described above it would work. Flys great with an OS 90 FSR.
12-09-2002, 04:41 PM
#7
Rails
I've been told that the retract rails and engine rails in the Model Tech P-51 can be a little weak, and should be replaced with Maple or Hardwood.
What if I were to apply or wrap these rails (if possible) with Fiberglass tape and either CA or Epoxy? This should add some strength, right?
Besides, I think replacing the existing rails will be tedious and could weaken the remaining structure, specifically, the nose.
Thoughts?
What if I were to apply or wrap these rails (if possible) with Fiberglass tape and either CA or Epoxy? This should add some strength, right?
Besides, I think replacing the existing rails will be tedious and could weaken the remaining structure, specifically, the nose.
Thoughts?
12-09-2002, 10:09 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles,
CA
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Rails
Originally posted by Kevlar
I've been told that the retract rails and engine rails in the Model Tech P-51 can be a little weak, and should be replaced with Maple or Hardwood.
What if I were to apply or wrap these rails (if possible) with Fiberglass tape and either CA or Epoxy? This should add some strength, right?
Besides, I think replacing the existing rails will be tedious and could weaken the remaining structure, specifically, the nose.
Thoughts?
I've been told that the retract rails and engine rails in the Model Tech P-51 can be a little weak, and should be replaced with Maple or Hardwood.
What if I were to apply or wrap these rails (if possible) with Fiberglass tape and either CA or Epoxy? This should add some strength, right?
Besides, I think replacing the existing rails will be tedious and could weaken the remaining structure, specifically, the nose.
Thoughts?
Probably my fault, as I used those Dubro screws that work great in glass / plastic mounts, but not so well, it seems, in hardwood bearers. I've put captive nuts and bolts in now. I have a Saito 72 installed, which works fine, and isn't over-vibrating.
Yes, the retract rails might be a bit weak, but I haven't had any problems there yet.
It's definitely a great flier though, and lands very easily.
David
