Westland Whirlwind... test 2.. another crash arriv

Afternoon Aviators. will you join me in re living my most recent aerial disaster movie please? It features my Westland Whirlwind WW 2 British fighter aeroplane. This is from a Galaxy models kit which a friend of mine built for me. It is as heavy as heavy can be, in an epically heavy way, I think this might be one of its problems. In this test, I don't think I've got airspeed. That coupled with maybe catching a gust of wind did me. She went off straight enough, but when she started banking I couldn't keep her level.....

Damage report... both nacelles ripped off, broken wing. I shall repair her and try again... I'm determined to get a nice vid of her flying... she's so heavy though!
'1/2 lb pork and a slice of haslet/' Cpl Jones.

Oh dear!
Hmmm
If that was full power I think you need more or loose some weight, or both!
I would also recommend counter rotating props as well. From my own experience it really improves things at high power and low speed. i.e. a hand launch!

Not another one Ian. Are you on a mission to see how many you CAN crash?

Seriously, I think Quorneng is dead right with his post, it never seemed to attain flying speed.

Garry

Classic tip-stalling! See my comment on your Spit post, regarding launching techniques!

Such a good looking model before you got your hands on it,often wondered what the Westland Whirlwind looked like.Maybe its time for you to talk to us about weight of model and suitable power set up.

Hi, yes, I think my opening comments were not enough airspeed. It's so heavy it's going to come in fast for any landing so I've decided to fit U/C. Remarkably the retractable units from the Lancaster could have been made to fit it, so that's the next project. Spit is in the shed being repaired. Lots of fibre glass going in!
'On parade Troup!' Cpl. Jones

Fitting an undercarriage could make it worse with the extra weight and also it could trip up when landing.

Yes the priority should be MORE POWER

U/C in... ballast out, plenty of power there, just didn't use it properly...

What is the motor set up and what battery are you using.What watt per pound please corp

Knowing the diameter and prop pitch would help with the diagnosis too....but I believe the fundamental prob was not enough speed on launch.

2 x 3542, 1300kV, 2 x 40A esc, 9.5 x 8 prop. Each motor should be delivering >550 watts on 3's Nano Techs 50C max. 'Plane weighs close to 2Kg.
It would have gone better with mo' throttle... maybe.
Cpl Jones

Do you have a wattmeter?
Please don't guess what current/watts/volts you are drawing, that is the shortest route to conflagration!
On the bench, a wattmeter will tell you exactly how much power you have.
You need AT LEAST 100 watts per pound (220 per kilo) on this kind of model.
Don't forget, the prop diameter and pitch decide how many watts the motor pulls. The voltage to the motor decides the rpm's, unless you get to silly large props, when things will start to melt, because the motor will just suck more and more amps in the effort to turn at it's designed rpm's!

A 3s under load delivers at best 10.5V.
To get 550W you would have to pull 550/10.5 = 52A, I am not sure a 40A ESC would allow such a current for long!
So unless I have got the figures wrong you are actually running rather less than 550W per motor but as Eric says without a meter it is not possible to determine what is the total power available.

Agree with the last two posts. I would NEVER install a power system without a watt meter in line. I cant stand the smell of the "Magic Smoke", and it is very expensive as well

Garry