Avro Lancaster 102" Dambuster

I does make a difference although a bit less in a 'four'.
Over the top towards the fuselage means that in the case of an engine failure the torque of the good engine(s) will tend to lift the wing of the failed engine making it that much easier (less rudder and aileron) to maintain 'straight and level'.
Obviously with a 'four' a single engine failure is less serious than with a high powered twin like the Mosquito but model planes do have a rather higher power to weight ratio than their full size counterparts.

The classic example was the P38.
For stability reasons the props rotated 'over the top away' (unlike the prototype) so an engine failure on take off had serious consequences resulting in many deaths from an uncontrollable roll into the ground. The solution developed by the test pilots was to train pilots to instantly reduce the throttle significantly on the good engine, stop climbing and fly very carefully until the speed had built up to the safe single engine manoeuvring speed. Wow!

Thanks for that explanation Q. Makes a lot of sense. So motors and props will be set to rotate inwards towards the fuselage.

Got away from work early today and fitted the undercarriage and aileron servos. Did a quick weigh in of every part and it comes out at an AUW (flying weight) of 6.34kg. As my target weight was 6.5kg i'm quite happy with that. If I need to reduce weight I can always chop a bit more off Guy's (Douglas's??) legs!! :woohoo: :woohoo:

Teaching Granny - don't forget if you have all props rotating top inwards, you need two left-handed props and two right-handed!

Post #119, do keep up Eric![badass]

I am keeping up - it's just that everyone else is running faster! [badass]

The "coiling" or rolling air when when passing the the tail in particular will have some control effect when Props rotating inwards. Outward rotation will possibly have a different effect. Look at the full size P38 for info. When counter rotating engines used it was good. the GB used same rotation for both and it performed less well.

The "coiling" or rolling air when when passing the the tail in particular will have some control effect when Props rotating inwards. Outward rotation will possibly have a different effect. Look at the full size P38 for info. When counter rotating engines used it was good. the GB used same rotation for both and it performed less well.

To be fair the British P38s also had the turbo super chargers removed. The US were not at war in 1941 so they banned the export the 'classified' turbo charger, so it became a low altitude fighter a role for which it was really unsuited having been specifically designed as a high altitude interceptor.

I think a lot of it was also down to production & ease of parts & replacement engines, wasn't it ?

Had a bit of fun this afternoon after flying this morning. Finished off the cockpit. Managed to find a map on the internet and scaled it down printed it then sprayed it in three coats for clear lacquer. Did the same for the navigation slide rule. Stuck them onto the navigators table behind the pilot. Fitted the engineers panel and seat in the stowed position. Ready to glue the canopy on tomorrow.

Loving the build Ralph and your usual standard of workmanship. Are we continuing with the Firefly after this? Pretty please.

And the Gannet

Yes Firefly will be next. Got the cowling and canopy coming from USA at last. Taken nearly 2 years to get them due to production issues by the supplier. I will also be cracking on with the Gannet.

Firefly parts arrived from the USA today. So thats my winter build sorted. Should keep Fly-navy happy! :lol: :lol:

CofG sorted. Needed a little nose weight so i've decided to use 2200 3S lipo for the sound system and a 3200 4S via a separate switching BEC for the radio gear. Balances nicely with these in the nose and I have comfort that there is plenty of amps for the systems.

No photos unfortunately as not a lot to see. If the weather holds out at the weekend I might make a few taxi trial runs.